Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 61, 85 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 4823 -- NDPS – Regular bail – Recovery of 254 grams heroin from main accused -- Petitioner was arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused -- When police arrested him, another alleged recovery of 50 grams of heroin was also effected -- Petitioner is behind bars since 13.10.2023, however, out of total 11 prosecution witnesses -- Petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 09 months & 09 days -- Petitioner is involved in one another case although he is on bail in that case – Bail allowed.

(Para 5-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 461, 528 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Jump of bail – Surety for Rs. 1 lakh – Liability of -- Delay of 511 days in appeal condoned -- Appellant/ surety had no knowledge that the convict would not surrender on time and there are no allegations of collusion between the appellant and the accused with regard to the accused not surrendering before learned trial Court -- Penalty reduced to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/-.

(Para 3, 7-13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 61 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Regular  bail – Conviction in one NDPS case already there – Effect of – Speedy trial – Right of -- Recovery of 87 kgs 800 grams of ganja -- Although the petitioner have been convicted in one case under the NDPS Act, however, that conviction would not come in the way of extending the concession of bail to the petitioner in the instant FIR since it is clearly discernible that the petitioner's right to a fair and speedy trial has been compromised on account of the repeated non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses -- No possibility of the trial concluding in the near future with 16 prosecution witnesses remaining to the examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 3, 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail – Speedy trial – Right of -- Petitioner is behind the bars from the last 03 years, 11 months and 02 days -- Investigation is complete -- Charges were framed and trial of the case has not made much progress – Right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last Court -- If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 323, 506, 341, 148, 149 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Murder – Regular bail -- FIR was lodged on 04.01.2023 – Deceased was alive till 22.02.2023 – No effort was made to get the other assailants identified – NS/ Eyewitness in his statement made on 16.01.2023 nominated two others to be the conspirators, he did not name the petitioner to be amongst assailants -- It is only on 25.03.2023 i.e. after the death of injured, the petitioner was arrested on the identification of NS/ eye witness -- Charges framed by the trial Court on 11.10.2024 -- Matter adjourned several times for recording prosecution evidence -- However, the most material witness are not appearing despite repeated summons and bailable warrants -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years 3 months and 3 days and he is not involved in any other criminal case -- Prosecution may take long time to conclude its evidence – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-10)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (3 of 2021), Section 3, 5 – Bail order – Delay of 28 full days in release of prisoner – Effect of -- Reasons given by the State is the non-mentioning of sub-section (1) of Section 5 – Correction made in the release order by the First Additional Sessions Judge, yesterday – Held, on this trivial non-issue, the applicant/ petitioner has lost his liberty for at least 28 full days -- Liberty is a very valuable and precious right guaranteed to the persons by the Constitution -- It cannot be bartered away on the altar of technicalities -- Ad hoc monetary compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) awarded to the applicant to be paid by State – Enquiry marked.

(Para 11-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(iii) (b) and (c), 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 32 kgs of Ganja -- Regular bail -- Definition of Ganja under NDPS Act takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops -- Thus, the definition of ‘Ganja’ is restricted and it does not include the seeds and leaves of Ganja plant -- Police while weighing the contraband did not segregate flowering tops from other material -- Petitioners ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-9)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 57, 187, 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21, 22 (2) – Arrest of accused – Non-production before Magistrate – Regular bail – Right of -- Petitioner admitted in hospital for last 45 day after the date of his arrest – His status is not of a free person but of an arrestee -- No order u/s 187 BNSS was passed by the Magistrate -- In absence of any order of remand beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, his arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody -- Since such non-production of the petitioner, even through video conferencing mode, beyond 24 hours in custody amounts to violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also violated and, on that count, the petitioner is entitled to go on bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 14-18)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 57, 187 – Constitution of India, Article 21, 22 (2) – Arrest – Production before Magistrate -- Arrestee shall have to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours -- Where the arrestee is injured and requires urgent medical care have to be rushed to the hospital for providing urgent medical treatment -- However, in such cases also the Magistrate may ascertain the condition of the arrestee through video conferencing or personally visiting such arrestee -- After the arrest of a person if he is not released on bail, an order for remand to judicial custody has to be made -- Magistrate may authorize his detention either in judicial or in police custody -- Unless, such an order is passed, the initial arrest of the petitioner beyond the period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, would become illegal.

(Para 15, 16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cancellation of bail – Parameters -- Law is well-settled that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different -- Bail once granted to the accused should normally not be interfered with/cancelled unless there exist circumstances giving rise to an inference that the bail has been procured by practicing fraud or mis-representation; that the allegations against the accused are so grave that the same have an adverse impact on the society at large and shake the conscience of the Court; that releasing the accused respondents on bail is likely to create a sense of fear and terror amongst the society or that the accused while on bail may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 148, 149, 326, 354, 511 read with 376D, 450 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cancellation of bail -- Concerted attack on the complainant’s house was launched on the day of election results with the sole objective of wreaking vengeance because he had supported the saffron party --  Complainant’s wife was viciously pulled by the hair and was disrobed -- Accused persons were about to assault her sexually when the lady gathered courage to pour kerosene on her body and gave a threat of self-immolation on which the accused persons including the respondents herein fled away from the complainant’s house -- Charge-sheet filed way back in the year 2022 and till date, the trial has not budged an inch -- Prosecution has alleged that this delay is mostly attributable to non-cooperation by the accused persons including the respondents -- On both counts, i.e., (i) the nature and gravity of the offence which is nothing short of an attack on the roots of democracy and (ii) the imminent likelihood of the accused adversely affecting a fair trial, the bail granted to the accused respondents has to be cancelled -- Bail cancelled.

(Para 17-21)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 34 – Abetment to suicide -- Frequent quarrels – Ground of -- Frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the deceased arising out of misunderstandings and discord these alone are not sufficient to constitute an offence u/s 306 of the IPC -- Such disputes between a husband and wife may be considered part of the ordinary wear and tear of marital life and, without credible and substantial evidence, cannot be treated as instigation or abetment to suicide.

(Para 4)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 34 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Petitioner has already suffered incarceration of 1 year, 1 day and is a person of clean antecedents; co-accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail -- Investigation is complete, challan stands presented and charges framed, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose – Right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – NDPS Case -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 3 Kg 500 grams of Sulfa (charas) – Regular bail -- FIR on secret information -- Alleged recovery from the public place -- Petitioner is behind bars for 01 year, 05 months and 02 days -- No criminal antecedents as he is not involved in any other case – Accused has a right of speedy trial -- Only 02 prosecution witnesses have been partially examined, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses -- Veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-10)

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), Section 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i), 132(5) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Offence under GST law – Regular bail – Onerous condition – Condition to deposit Rs.2.5 crores after release on bail -- When attempts are made to foreclose consideration of bail application on merits by voluntarily offering deposits of amounts and thereafter reneging on it by stating that a counsel had no authority and/or that the condition is onerous – Court strongly deprecated this practice -- Today the petitioner is approbating and reprobating, Court cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the Court -- Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits -- Ordinarily the consequence would have been to put the petitioner back in jail -- However, considering the averments made in the modification application, Court granted a limited interim protection to the petitioner from surrendering.

(Para 4-11)

A. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 17, 18, 22C, Section 43D(5) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- UAPA Case – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Delay in trial – Effect of -- Scope and application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA whereunder the court, at the stage of bail is not required to meticulously examine the admissibility and reliability of evidence -- The degree of satisfaction required under this provision has to be lower than the proof beyond reasonable doubt, but must still be rooted in material that is not inherently improbable or ex facie unreliable -- Rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA would, however, in an appropriate case yield to the overarching mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, especially where the trial is inordinately delayed or where the incarceration becomes punitive -- However, such relaxation cannot possibly be automatic and must be evaluated in light of the specific facts and risks associated with each case

(Para 23, 24)

B. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 17, 18, 22C, Section 43D(5) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 29 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS/ UAPA Case – Regular bail – Despite no direct recovery of contraband effected from the Appellant, the Prosecution’s case is that he played a coordinating and enabling role in facilitating the import of narcotics concealed as talc -- Investigative narrative does not rest solely on physical recovery but proceeds on the basis of conspiracy and facilitation – Absence of direct seizure is not dispositive, particularly where there exists a pattern of covert coordination, fictitious entities, and barter-based compensation – Bail declined.

(Para 25-27, 35)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341, 323, 307, 302, 120B, 147, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 3, 25, 5, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Conspiracy -- Regular bail -- Common intention – Overt Act -- Merely because no overt act was attributed to the respondent/ accused in the F.I.R., the same cannot be the sole consideration for grant of bail -- First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia of facts -- An FIR is a starter point to set the investigation in motion -- Respondent/accused hatched a conspiracy so as to eliminate the victim and engaged a contract killer to kill the victim  -- High Court failed to consider that the accused are the main accused in the matter and cannot be enlarged on bail because the other co-accused persons have been granted bail -- High Court order granting bail set aside.

(Para 16-20)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491 -- Non-deposit surety bond amount – Conviction for 6 months – Challenge to -- Appellant stood surety for convict in appeal against conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Accused not appeared -- Being a poor person, appellant was unable to pay the amount of bail bonds and pleaded guilty -- Appellate Court should have taken a lenient view -- Punishment imposed on the appellant was too harsh, disproportionate -- Courts should impose monetary penalties or should adopt other measures -- Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by him (1 month and 18 days).

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 204, 438 -- Companies Act, 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Section 212(6), 447 -- Anticipatory bail – Serious Economic offences – SFIO investigated over 125 companies and filed a criminal complaint involving Rs. 4120 crores in fraudulent loans -- The Special Court issued bailable and later non-bailable warrants against the accused, many of whom deliberately evaded service -- Proclamation proceedings u/s 82 CrPC were initiated -- Despite prior knowledge of the case many accused concealed themselves and avoided appearance -- High Courts granted anticipatory bail to several accused.

Held, High Courts should also consider the factum of issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proclamation proceedings seriously and not casually, while considering the anticipatory bail application of such accused -- As per Section 212 (6), the offence covered under Section 447 of the Companies Act not entitled to be released on bail or on his bond, unless twin conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. The twin conditions are:-

(i) that a Public Prosecutor should be given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

These twin conditions are mandatory in nature.

Economic offences constitute a class apart, as they have deep rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds, and therefore such offences need to be viewed seriously -- Impugned orders passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail set aside.

(Para 23-26, 31)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2)(a), 173 -- Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), Section 3, 4, 5 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B – Default bail after 60 days – Non-prescribing of minimum punishment/ maximum upto 14 years -- Non-filing of challan -- Effect of – Section 3 of the Act though, prescribes maximum punishment up to 14 years, there is no minimum punishment provided under the said provision -- Punishment prescribed for the offence punishable u/s 5 of the said Act is maximum up to three years -- Since, the investigation was not completed in sixty days, the Respondent had become entitled to the default bail under Section 167(2)(a) of Cr.P.C -- High Court has rightly followed the Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67 case and released the Respondent on bail.

(Para 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Promise if any was after the first physical intercourse and even later the allegation was forceful intercourse without any consent -- Allegation of threat and coercion against the victim, to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which even as per the victim’s statement was repeated thrice in the same manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room -- High Court should have interfered u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C -- These proceedings cannot go on -- Proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 439 -- Bail application – Direction to CBI to register FIR -- High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case based on the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and conduct investigation thereon; in a bail application – Held, there can be no such direction in a bail application -- Impugned order set aside to that extent.

(Para 1-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 430 -- Suspension of sentence – Life imprisonment – Fixed term sentence – Consideration of -- Plea for suspension of sentence should be considered liberally if the sentence is for a fixed term and there are no other exceptional circumstances to decline -- However, if the sentence is of life imprisonment, then for the purpose of considering the plea for suspension of sentence, what should be looked into is something palpable on the basis of which, the appellate court can prima facie reach to the conclusion that there are all possible chances that the convict may get acquitted.

(Para 10)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491, 528 -- Absence from trial – Cancellation of bail – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Arrest warrant – Quashing of – Many a times, the accused can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and wilful absence -- Explanation offered for non-appearance before the trial Court is justified -- Curtailment of personal liberty is to be done in line with the procedure established by law -- Procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness – Sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants is to secure presence of the accused before the learned trial Court -- Petitioners have themselves come forward and have undertaken to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date – Impugned order set aside.

(Para 7-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity – Pregnancy of wife -- Interim regular bail -- Recovery of 478 grms of heroin from pocket of petitioner -- Challan has not been presented and petitioner is inside jail since 11.10.2024 -- Wife of the petitioner is pregnant and she requires someone very close to her, who can take care of her physical and mental health, at the time of need -- Only person, in house is stated to be the grandmother of the petitioner, who herself is aged about 80 years -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on interim regular bail from 15.03.2025 to 23.5.2025.

(Para 3-7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 397(B)(2), 34 – Robbery – Regular bail -- Petitioner is behind the bars for a period of 01 year 04 months and 02 days -- Involvement of accused in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail -- Trial is at the stage of prosecution witness and out of 19 PWs, only 01 has been examined till date -- Further detention without the prospect of conclusion of trial in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 21, 22, 29, 61, 85  -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- NDPS – Regular bail – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 261 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride, marginal above the commercial quantity (250 grams) -- Petitioner is a first time offender with no other case under the NDPS Act registered against him -- Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed – Petitioner in custody since 13.09.2023 but none of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and a co-accused has already been granted the similar relief – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 437 – Right to bail u/s 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. – Scope of -- Sub-section (2) of Section 437 of the Code can be divided in two parts -- The first part would indicate that it is mandatory, but in the next breath, the legislature has given discretion to the Magistrate not to grant bail by assigning reasons -- Provisions of Section 437(6) cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused -- Reasons for rejection of application under sub-section (6) have to be different and little more weighty than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage. Following factors would be relevant:

1. Whether the reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence, are attributable to the accused?

2. Whether there are any chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner?

3. Whether there are any chances of abscondence of the accused on being bailed out?

4. Whether accused was not in custody during the whole of the said period?

If the answer to any one of the above referred fact situations or similar fact situations is in affirmative then that would work as a fetter on the right that accrues to the accused under first part of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code -- Right accrues to him only if he is in custody during the whole of the said period.

(Para 9-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Second bail application -- There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted.

(Para 4)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Second bail application – Filing of a fresh bail application, once an earlier bail application has been rejected or if granted and thereafter cancelled is a matter of right and solely on the ground that the Apex Court had not permitted filing of the fresh bail application, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the bail application.

(Para 5)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal – Suspension of sentence -- Deposit of 20% compensation – Requirement of -- Petitioners/ convicts directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court by the Appellate Court -- No reason given by the Court while issuing directions -- Condition of depositing of 20% of compensation amount awarded by the trial Court imposed for the purpose of suspension of sentence, set aside -- Appellate Court directed to re-consider the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law laid down in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (SC) 2024(2) L.A.R. 323 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509 and till then not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148(1) -- Deposit of 20% compensation – Requirement of -- According to Section 148 NI Act, the requirement to deposit a minimum 20% of the fine or compensation during an appeal is not mandatory, instead, it is discretionary power vested with the appellate Court meaning the said Court can choose to waive the said deposit in certain exceptional circumstances depending on the facts of the case.

(Para 7)

Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (3 of 2021), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Conversion from one religion to another religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement  -- Regular bail – Discretion of Court -- The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc. -- Trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence -- However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously -- Grant of bail is a matter of discretion, but discretion has to be exercised judicially keeping in mind the well settled principles of grant of bail -- Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious -- Petitioner is going to be put to trial and ultimately if the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case, he would be punished – Bail allowed.

(Para 10-13, 21)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 108 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail -- No incriminating material put forth by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commissioning of offence except that his name has been mentioned in the FIR -- Ingredients of Section 108 of BNS i.e., the abetment or the instigation at the part of the petitioner is missing, therefore, prima facie offence u/s 108 of BNS cannot be made out at this stage -- He is a person of clean antecedents – Petitioner has bona fide intentions and is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency in time – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 23, 29, 21C, 25, 27A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- NDPS – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused and except that no other cogent material available to the prosecution -- No recovery effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner -- No reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 52A, 54 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act -- Granting bail to the accused merely on the ground that the compliance of Section 52A was not done within reasonable time, is highly erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Matter remanded back to High Court.

(Para 39, 40)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A, 54 – NDPS -- Procedural irregularity – Effect of -- Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail -- The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible u/s 54 of the NDPS Act.

(Para 39 (III)-(vi))

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 100, 105, 106 – Stunts on road – Culpable homicide – Death by rash and negligent driving -- When someone does stunts on a public road, endangering public safety, and when the motor sport is not being conducted with the knowledge of the traffic control authorities and ample time has been given to them to take preventive steps, the acts of public stunt, it leads to death would fall in the definition of culpable homicide and if death is not caused then an attempt to cause culpable homicide and such acts would not fall only under section 106 BNS [Analogous to 304-A IPC, 1860] because of the requisite knowledge that such an act is likely to result into death or cause death -- Such an act would not fall under rash and negligent driving, but primafacie amounts to culpable homicide.

(Para 37)

B. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 100, 105 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 – Anticipatory bail -- Death by stunt on road – Accident by modified tractor by fitting an extra turbo pump to increase the acceleration -- Video points towards its high speed on a public road -- If a soft stand is taken towards such stunts, the roads, which are already unsafe, will become more unsafe for pedestrians and two-wheelers, which account for the maximum number of casualties for pedestrians and two-wheelers in road accidents in this region – Anticipatory bail declined.

(Para 3, 12, 13)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 19, 44, 45, 50 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 479, 483 – PMLA Case – Bail – Long incarnation -- A suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention – The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial – Trial Court directed to decide on framing of charges before 31.12.2024, thereafter fix a date within the second and third week of January 2025 for recording the statements of such prosecution witnesses who are the most material or vulnerable – All such witnesses, especially those who have expressed apprehension of danger to their lives (who might be two or three), will be examined on these dates – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on 01.02.2025.

(Para 17, 18)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(1A) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3),376AB, 376DA, 376DB – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 15A(3) -- Rape – Regular Bail -- Victim’s right of hearing – SC/ST victim -- As per Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C., the presence of the informant or any person authorised by him or her is obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or Section 376DB of the IPC -- It is also mandatory on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor of the State Government to inform the victim about the court proceedings, including bail proceedings as contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ ST Act, 1989.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 363, 376DA, 506, 392 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5(g), 6 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3(2), 15(5A) – POCSO -- Regular Bail -- Victim’s right of hearing – SC/ST victim -- In gross violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, High Court granted bail in a very casual and cursory manner and without assigning any cogent reasons, though the concerned respondents are prima facie involved in a very serious offences -- Impugned orders in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. as well as in the SC/ST Act, set aside.

(Para 7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491, 528 -- Absence from trial – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Arrest warrant – Quashing of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the BNSS, 2023 is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested – Petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court, however due to a misimpression regarding the date, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on two dates and on account of the same, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, he is ready to appear and face the trial -- Petition allowed, Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on same bail bonds/surety bonds.

(Para 5-8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 115(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- No injury attributed to the petitioner, except lalkara raised by him -- Co-accused granted concession of interim anticipatory bail -- No reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case -- Regular bail -- Search of accused – Magistrate or Gazetted officer – Use of word “Any” instead “Nearest” Gazetted officer – Effect of -- Intent behind the provision is to ensure that the person about to be searched is made aware of the option to be taken before a third person other than the one who is conducting the search -- Use of the expression “nearest” refers to the convenience as the suspect is to be searched, delay should be avoided -- Nothing more is articulated and meant by the words used, or the intent behind the provision -- High Court granted bail stating that use of the word ‘any’ does not satisfy the mandate of the ‘nearest’ Gazetted Officer -- Recovery of 500 gms. of heroin is a substantial commercial quantity, respondent involved in another case, in which the quantity involved was an intermediate quantity, respondent is on bail in the said case -- Impugned judgment set aside.

(Para 5-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 384, 506, 120-B, 216 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Conspiracy -- Regular bail -- Appellant nominated as an accused only for being part of the conspiracy to the crime in question and he was not present when the alleged murder took place -- Bail allowed.

(Para 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of counterfeit currency – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 04.04.2024 -- Entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence, which is already part of the challan -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future – Bail allowed.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 25, 27-A, 29 -- Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42, 52-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1600 grams of heroin from co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 18.09.2023; challan was presented on 12.03.2024 followed by framing of charges on 07.06.2024 -- Till date none of the 31 prosecution witnesses examined – No recovery of any contraband or even mobile handsets was affected from the petitioner; the petitioner is being sought to be linked to the co-accused only on the basis of some mobile calls made between him and them – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 480(6), 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 120B – Cheating – Non-conclusion of trial within 60 days -- Bail – Right of -- Charges framed on 31.05.2024, case is triable by the Magistrate -- First date for recording evidence was 14.06.2024 and 60 days completed on 13.08.2024 -- Accused-petitioner is in custody for more than two years -- Only one prosecution witness out of total 33 prosecution witnesses examined -- Accused cannot be continued in custody for an indefinite period and that too for no fault on his bail in conclusion of the trial as per the mandate of Section 480(6) of BNSS – Bail allowed.

(Para 9, 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 – Cheque bounce complaint – Dismiss in default -- Complaint was filed on 18.12.2020 and thereafter, the appellant/ complainant was regularly appearing before the Trial Court, however, on 23.08.2024 the appellant could not appear as wrong date was noted by the counsel, complaint was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution -- Held, Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint, however, if the Magistrate finds that there was some valid reason for non-appearance of the complainant or the presence of the complainant was not required during the Court proceeding, he can very well exercise his discretion to adjourn the complaint -- While exercising the jurisdiction u/s 256 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration that the powers vested in it have to be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice -- Impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number.

(Para 11-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- Suspension of fine -- While convicting an accused, if a direction is issued against him to pay a fine, such a direction can be suspended in the exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 389 of the CrPC.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Suspension of sentence/ fine -- While suspending the sentence, especially the sentence of fine, the Appellate Court can impose conditions -- Court has to keep in mind that if a condition of deposit of an amount is imposed while suspending the sentence of fine, the same should not be such that it is impossible for the appellant to comply with it, defeating his right of appeal against the order of conviction, which may also violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

(Para 8)

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 3(5), 108 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Deceased-employee was disturbed since about 2 weeks, his seniors/ petitioner at Bank were harassing during duty – Prosecution failed to provide specific allegations or instances demonstrating the petitioner’s role in prompting or instigating the deceased to commit suicide -- Primafacie basic ingredients of Section 108 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 not met out -- It would be a futile exercise to send the petitioner behind the bars for custodial interrogation – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(n) – Chatur Varshik Shradh of deceased father of convict – Interim bail -- Rape convict for 10 years -- Denial or curtailment or deprivation of interim release shall defeat the object and intent of reformation, which is the heart and core of criminal justice -- Interim bail granted commencing from 12th October 2024 till 20th October, 2024 with two police personnels.

(Para 5, 6)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) Section 491, 492, 528 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 61, 85 – Solitary absence of the petitioner/ accused -- Forfeiture of bail bond -- Many a times, the accused can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness --  Petitioner himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 10-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case – Regular  bail -- Recovery of 3.17 Kg. of charas – Sample was not taken from each piece or each strip, 100 gram sample was randomly taken -- It cannot be said that each sample is the representative sample of the allegedly recovered quantity of the applicant -- Bail allowed. Gaunter Edwin Kircher’s case (1993) 3 SCC 145 relied.

(Para 4-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (n), 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376(3), 376 (2)(n) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – Applicant submitted hat the victim in her examination u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that she was known to the applicant and she on her own left her house and joined the company of the applicant and they did not establish any physical relationship -- These facts admitted by State -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (l), 6– Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164, 439 -- POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – In statement u/s 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., victim stated that the victim and the applicant both were in relationship and their relations were consensual – State submitted that the victim is a minor – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Section 9, 39, 48, 50, 51 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Recovery of elephant tusk – Regular bail -- No expert opinion at this stage -- Applicant has no criminal history – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)