Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(i)C, 61, 85, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case -- Anticipatory bail – Allegation that petitioner supplied Ganja weighing 5 kgs. 200 grams, to the principal offender – State submits that the above weight of above Ganja, makes it fall within the ambit of intermediate quantity – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable – Ad interim bail granted made absolute.

(Para 1, 3-5)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Child in conflict with law -- Rejection of bail -- Revision against -- Bail is the general rule and only in cases covered by exceptions provided in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act, bail can be denied -- Impugned order stated that there is an apprehension that life of CCL would be in danger -- State is not in the position to substantiate the basis for the reasons recorded -- Impugned order set aside -- Matter remitted back to Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board to consider the matter afresh.

(Para 1-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Matrimonial dispute – Non-recovery of dowry articles -- Anticipatory bail – Petitioner joined investigation on interim bail -- Recovery of disputed dowry articles would not come in the way of confirmation of interim bail -- If at some stage the parties agree to reconcile their differences then the fact that they had spent some time in custody would be a circumstance which may come in the way of amicably settling the matter – Interim bail granted to petitioner made absolute -- Rajesh Sharma’s case (2018) 10 SCC 472 and Anil Rajput’s case 2010(6) RCR (Criminal) 1126 relied.

(Para 1,2,6,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 326, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Interim bail -- Submission by ld. State counsel that the bail applicants have meted the required/enjoined co-operation(s) to the investigating officer concerned -- After completion of investigations, the IO, is very promptly instituting an affirmative report u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. -- Not fit and proper case to order custodial interrogation of the bail applicants – Interim bail made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 248, 438, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 323, 427, 447, 452, 506, 380 -- Anticipatory bail with a condition to deposit of Rs.1,10,000/- -- Acquittal in trial – Right to refund -- After acquittal, in a petition moved by the petitioner, High Court directed CJM for release of amount – CJM needlessly proceeded to interpret the order without any jurisdiction, and observed that filing of appeal against acquittal by complainant was not brought to the notice of High Court, therefore, the amount should not be disbursed to the applicant/accused till further clarification from the High Court – Held, CJM passed the order by giving irrational reasons, which not only show his dearth of understanding criminal jurisprudence & fundamental principles of law, but also reflect judicial indiscipline on his part, which amounts to grave misconduct and warrants departmental action against him -- Impugned order set aside -- Amount deposited by the petitioner ordered to be refunded forthwith -- Copy of the order sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for initiating departmental action against CJM.

(Para 2,3,9-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 395, 458, 307 (Section 325 IPC added later on) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Dacoity – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was not named in the FIR, in supplementary statement recorded after three days, the complainant stated that at the time of registration of the FIR, he was under the influence of the medicine and forgot the name of the petitioner but now he is sure about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime, but not attributed any specific role to him – Petitioner directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and if he is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer.

(Para 4-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case -- Regular bail – Surety/ Personal bond -- No criminal antecedents – Contention that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and family – State contends that bail would encourage snatching, and such incidents are already rising – Petitioners are in custody since 12-09-2021; furthermore, they are the first offenders, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct – Petitioners shall be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/-) and shall furnish one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-) – In the alternative, the petitioners may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), and hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-) -- It shall be the total discretion of the applicants to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits.

(Para 4-13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail – Possibility of influencing evidence – Conditions of bail -- Possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C), 36(4), 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case -- Default bail – Challan without FSL Report -- Expiry of 180 days -- Petitioner was arrested on 02.10.2020 and had moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 21.05.2021. i.e. after the expiry of 180 days -- Challan was prepared on 14.11.2020 and was presented on 24.11.2020 and no FSL report has been presented in the Court till date -- Petitioner has been in custody since 02.10.2020 i.e. 1 year and 4½ months and there are as many as 12 witnesses, none of whom have been examined yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time, moreso, in view of the present COVID-19 pandemic situation – Revision allowed at this stage and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail – In case question of law is held against the present petitioner and is contrary to the law laid down in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, then, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of this order, if warranted at that stage. Suresh’s case, (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15648 & Ajit singh @ Jeeta’s case (2018) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121 relied.

(Para 7, 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – One year RI and Rs.60 lacs as compensation – Appeal against – Suspension of sentence with pre-condition of deposit of 20% of cheque amount given as compensation – Sustainability of – Direction(s) appears to be oppressive, especially given that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs became assessed -- Necessarily, also it negates the efficacy of the impugned order, besides fetters the liberty of the petitioner – Held, Appellate Court was enjoined to ensure his bringing inter se proportionality inter se the compensation, and/ or the cheque amount, and, to thereafter, impose a tenable, and, just condition for the orders, suspending the execution of sentence of imprisonment, as imposed upon the convict(s)-appellant(s), by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather taking the fullest effect, through his hence directing them to deposit a reasonable, and, just sum, before the learned trial Judge concerned – Petition accepted, Court proceeded to modify the impugned order, through a direction to deposit 10% amount of the disputed cheque amount, before the learned trial Court concerned.

(Para 6-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 326, 324, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Grievous hurt -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner fully co-operated with the investigations and has ensured the recovery of the incriminatory weapon of offence -- Victim has fully recovered from the injuries -- State submitted that it may not be any necessity for subjecting the bail petitioner to custodial interrogation – Held, submission is well merited, as any order subjecting the bail petitioner to custodial interrogation, despite his meteing the fullest co-operation to the investigating officer concerned, would curtail, and, fetter his personal liberty – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 – Cheating and forgery – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 06th October, 2021, allegations levelled against the petitioner was to the effect that he had demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant to get her an appointment in the Human Rights Commission and had also received a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the same – Investigation in the matter is complete and it is a Magisterial trial -- Charges in the case are yet to be framed – Considering the custody period of the petitioner and the fact that petitioner is no longer required for investigation, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS case – Non-appearance of accused – Exemption from personal appearance – Non-seeking of -- Cancellation of bail – Legality of -- Absence on a singular occasion -- Petitioner was represented through his counsel – There was not a dire necessity to personally record his appearance -- Even if the accused had not sought his exemption from personal appearance, yet the learned trial Judge could not straightway proceed to, order for cancellation of his personal, and, surety bonds, and, that too without asking for an explanation with respect to the non-appearance of the accused -- Trial Court was expected to in the expediency of justice, to ensure his personal appearance, through initially upon, issuance of summons, upon the petitioner remaining intentionally unresponsive, thereafter issue non-bailable warrants, than at the outset issuing non-bailable warrants – Held, order for cancellation of personal, and, surety bonds of the petitioner, and, also for his being summoned through non-bailable warrants vacated, and, set aside.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 364-A, 365, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abduction case – Regular bail – Recovery on disclosure not effected –Disclosure statement maybe prima facie admissible, and, relevant evidence, and, its legal effect cannot become stalled, through the maker of the disclosure statement failing to, in pursuance thereof, ensure its recovery, to the I.O. – Bail petitioner made the disclosure, hence, impose a condition upon, him, that if he fails to, within seven days after his being admitted to bail, and, rather ensure effectuation of recovery, at his instance -- Since the bail petitioners are in judicial custody for the last four months, petitioners admitted to bail only subject to the afore referred condition, which shall apply only to the maker of the disclosure statement.

(Para 1,2,5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 392 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Robbery case -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law -- JJ Board and Appellate Court depended, upon the proviso to Section 12 of Act in concluding that upon facility of bail, there being every likelihood of his being brought in association with hardened criminals, and, that there is being every likelihood of his hence being exposed to moral, physical and psychological danger – However, both the ld. Courts proceeded to, without any tangible and concrete evidence with respect to the afore factum existing on record rather made the above conclusion prima-facie imaginative, and, also surmisal – Statutory leverage in the Courts below with an alternate being placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer, and/or, under the care of any fit person neither been explored, nor has been thought fit to be worked vis-à-vis the juvenile in conflict with law – Consequently, the impugned orders quashed, and, set aside, with a direction, that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be released, and, shall be upon his release, become placed by the District Collector concerned, under, the supervision of the Child Welfare Officer.

(Para 8-12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail – Setting aside of -- Where a Court while considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail -- Appellate Court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available on record.

(Para 12.2)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B –  Regular bail by High court – Setting aside of -- While releasing Respondent no.2 on bail, the High Court has not at all considered the relevant factors including the nature and gravity of accusation; the modus operandi and the manner in which the offences have been committed through shell companies and creating the false/forged documents and/or misusing the PAN Cards, Aadhar Cards and KYCs of the employees and showing them as Directors of the fake and shell companies -- High Court has not at all considered and taken into consideration the status report and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation -- Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No.2 on bail is unsustainable as the High Court -- Impugned judgment quashed and set aside.

(Para 13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – FSL report awaited – Interim bail -- In view of the judgment rendered in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 and that the petitioner herein has been in custody since 17.09.2021 and that FSL report is still awaited and the trial will commence only after receipt of the FSL report, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- At this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, petition is disposed of and the petitioner is directed to be released on interim regular bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 18 – POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Allegation that petitioner has tried to do bad act with victim by forcibly kissing her and with intention to commit rape, he has broken the string of her Salwar – Prosecutrix is stated to be 17 years and 02 months of age -- Prosecutrix when was taken to hospital, she made a statement that she does not want to be medico-legally examined as no rape was committed with her -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 01 year and 11 months; he is not involved in any other case and also considering the fact that statement of the prosecutrix already stands recorded, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 – Embezzlement of Government supply – Regular bail -- Wheat of government supply was diverted to a private Mill – Wheat loaded in the Truck was being unloaded at the Mill -- Driver of the truck was apprehended at the spot -- He disclosed that the wheat bags were brought to the Mill on the asking of other person -- Petitioner is the mill owner and in custody since 09th July, 2021 -- Investigation is complete, challan stands presented and no recovery is to be made -- Case is based on documentary evidence -- Co-accused was granted bail – Conclusion of trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner granted bail.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 498-A – Dowry case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation, however, the gold articles are yet to be recovered -- It is apparent that there are allegations and counter-allegations which is totally a subject matter of the investigation -- Interim bail made absolute.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 446A -- Breach of the bail condition – Personal hearing -- Cancellation of bail – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Warrant of arrest – It was incumbent, upon the learned Special Judge, to issue notice to them and also ensure their participation in the relevant proceedings, imperatively before his ordering for cancellation and forfeiting of personal and surety bonds of the bail petitioners and for his thereafter ordering for issuance of warrants of arrest – Issuance of warrants of arrest, prior to theirs being validly served with a notice has led to gross injustice -- Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed and set aside.

(Para 5-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446A -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused – Cancellation of bail bond – Non-bailable warrant issued -- Order does not disclose that the complainants evidence was present or not -- Consequently, the ld. Judicial Magistrate, could not draw any valid conclusion whether merely for non-appearance of the accused, and, of his counsel both were intending to delay the proceedings – Yet a reading of the order also makes a disclosure that the notice for ensuring the personal appearance of the accused before the ld. Judicial Magistrate, rather was issued -- No echoing in the order that the above notice was ever validly served or not upon accused – Therefore, the impugned order is ridden with the vice of breaching the principles of natural justice and also for its untenably interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail – Enquiry by SP(D) and DSP finding petitioner innocent – Pending approval of SSP – Effect of -- FIR registered solely on the basis of suspicion -- Neither, there is any suicide note nor there is any dying declaration nor the deceased had made any complaint with respect to any alleged call of threat made by any person – Held, although, the said enquiry is still pending approval with SSP, but in view of the same, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be required -- Moreso, the mobile Number from which the alleged threats were given, does not even belong to the petitioner -- Question, as to whether, even in case, the allegations in the FIR are taken on its face value, the offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out or not, would be a matter of trial -- Petition allowed.

(Para 9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – Suspension of sentence on furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh – Later on an application by complainant, Appellate Court proceeded to direct the appellant, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- comprising 20% of the compensation amount to the complainant within one month – Order made by Appellate Court is a discreet, and, tacit attempt, to proceed to impermissibly review, and scuttle the effect of the binding order -- It is ridden with a vice of infirmity, if so, and, even if assuming the order did hold some aura or tinge of validity, yet until and unless there was some evidently deterrent circumstances, prevailing upon the learned Appellate Court, as comprised in the appellant rather deliberately delaying the making of an expeditious decision, upon the appeal, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to make the order -- De hors finality being assignable to P-3/order suspending sentence, High Court directed the convict / petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount before the learned Appellate Court within one month.

(Para 2-9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Cheque bounce case -- Interim deposit of compensation u/s 148 of NI Act – Restoration of compensation to accused/appellant – Order of – Requirement of -- Legally incumbent upon the learned First Appellate Court, to order that in case there is allowing of the appeal, as preferred before it, by the accused-convict, thereupon the interim compensation, as determined, be restored or refunded to the accused/ convict, by the complainant -- However, the directions, as legally required to be made, while being seized with an application, u/s 148 of the NI Act, are not existing, hence the order suffers from an infirmity.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 67 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Confessional statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act – Recovery from one accused -- Bail to all accused – Challenge to -- Arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/ voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused u/s 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail -- CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial – Bail order upheld, except respondent-M from whom recovery of substantial commercial quantities of drugs from a rented accommodation occupied by him -- This respondent cannot seek parity and no such benefit could have been extended to him in view of Section 37 of the Act when he was found to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances – Bail granted to the respondent-M cancelled forthwith, he directed to surrender before the Sessions Court/Special Judge (NDPS) within a period of two weeks, for being taken into custody.

(Para 9-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Cross-case -- Submission that it is a case of version and cross-version and in the FIR case, father of the petitioner was murdered and cross-version was registered after 05 days -- It is further submitted that in the DDR version, the petitioner is attributed simple injury with a stick, whereas in the supplementary statement, the petitioner has caused a firearm injury -- It is also submitted that in the FIR version, two accused have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail noticing the aforesaid facts – Further submitted that primarily, it is a dispute with regard to possession of agricultural land, which both the parties claim that they have purchased it and are in possession of the same and even in the anticipatory bail granted to accused in the FIR version, it is noticed that it is a case of free fight regarding the possession over the land in dispute -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for any further investigation – Order granting interim bail confirmed.

(Para 1-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173 -- NDPS case – Default bail -- 1.5 kg. opium (non-commercial quantity) was recovered from the dickey of the scooter – Petitioner was a pillion rider – FSL had not been filed along with the challan – Petitioner would be entitled to be released on default bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 6-14)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Interim bail – Challan without FSL report -- In view of the judgment rendered in Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi's case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953, and the facts that the petitioners in custody since 27.07.2021 and FSL report is still awaited and the trial will commence only after receipt of the FSL report, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioners behind bars -- Petitioners directed to be released on interim bail till the FSL report is received.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- Once bail has been granted, the Courts should act with great circumspection in cancelling it unless, of course, some material is brought to the notice of the Court that the accused has breached the conditions of bail imposed upon them or a perverse order has been passed while granting the concession of bail.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 406 -- Anticipatory bail – Cancellation of bail – Non-recovery of dowry articles – Effect of -- Pursuant to the interim order, both accused had joined investigation -- Though, it was submitted by the Public Prosecutor that recovery of all dowry articles had not been effected from the respondents, however, it would not be out of place to observe that an FIR registered under Section 498-A, 406 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of them, cannot be converted solely into recovery proceedings -- Allegations of entrustment and misappropriation of dowry articles of the petitioner being disputed questions of fact, cannot be looked into by the Court while deciding a petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B -- Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (43 of 1978), Sections 4, 5, 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 --  Onerous conditions for grant of bail – Legality of -- An application for bail was allowed by the High Court subject to the petitioner depositing cash of Rs.20 lakhs and providing security of immovable property to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs – Held, imposition of onerous conditions for grant of bail tantamount to denial of bail -- Order of the High Court relating to the conditions set aside.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 34 (Section 326 IPC added later on) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Grievous hurt – Version Cross-version case -- Petitioner himself has suffered 3 injuries in the incident and the alleged grievous injury attributed to him is on a non-vital part and the petitioner has joined the investigation - Petition allowed, interim order made absolute.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 8 strips of 80 tablets of Cividol-100 SR and 3 strips of Etizolam tablets 0.5 mg (each strip containing 10 tablets) -- Sample parcel of Cividol-100 SR tablets contains salt Tramadol Hydrochloride (total weight 11.076 grams) and that of Etizolam tablets contains salt Etizolam (total weight 4.090 grams) – Petitioner in custody since 08.04.2021 -- Recovery in question was effected from ground -- Evidence has yet not commenced, conclusion of trial would take a long time -- No other case against the petitioner -- Investigation is complete -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b), 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Recovery of 1kg 600 grams of ganja -- Challan filed without FSL report – FIR is dated 22.12.2020, challan is stated to have been filed on 11.02.2021 -- FSL report not been filed till date – Petitioner would be entitled to be released on default bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 2, 5, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379, 447, 506, 511 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Criminal trespass and theft – Anticipatory bail – Petitioner and other accused cut trees standing in the land -- Primarily, there is land dispute between the parties and the matter is sub-judice -- Petitioner has already joined the investigation and is not required by the police for custodial interrogation -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- NDPS case – Challan without FSL Report -- Default bail -- Recovery of 7000 tablets of ‘Clovidol-10 SR’ (Tramadol Hydrochloride) -- Supreme Court and also a full Bench of High Court have held that a challan even if not accompanied by a report of the Chemical Examiner or of the expert cannot be said to be incomplete, however, the said cases did not pertain to an offence under the NDPS Act -- A case under the NDPS Act can only survive in case the prosecution is able to establish that the article recovered is indeed a contraband and which can only be established on the basis of its chemical examination, which is normally got done through FSL established by the Government -- Report of the FSL forms the foundation of the case of prosecution and in case the same is not there the entire case of prosecution falls to ground – Since there are some conflicting judgments of High Court and the matter stands referred to a Division Bench and is still sub-judice, Court deemed appropriate to extend the concession of bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. to the petitioner while also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 9 months and is not stated to be involved in any other case -- Petition accepted.

(Para 10-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 326, 324, 323, 341, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Injury case -- Version and cross-version -- It is a case of version and cross-version and it is yet to be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one -- Moreover, there is an unexplained delay of 05 days in lodging the present FIR -- Petition allowed, petitioner directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and if he is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer.

(Para 3, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21 (b), 27 (a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail -- Non-appearance of accused – Forfeiture of bail bond – Petitioner could not appear as his counsel did not inform him about the date fixed – Trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order on account of his solitary absence after grant of regular bail on 15.01.2020 -- Every absence cannot be necessarily construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Explanation offered by the petitioner behind his nonappearance before the trial Court on 10.03.2021 appears to be probable -- Impugned order set aside subject to appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court.

(Para 1-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-B – Cheating case -- Regular bail by Magistrate -- Cancellation of bail – Jurisdiction of court -- Petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Magistrate for cancellation of bail by filing an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C -- Without exhausting the remedy, he cannot directly approach High Court for cancellation of bail.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 45 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Companies Act, 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Section 212(6) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 43D (5) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012) -- Bail after filing charge-sheet – Consideration of -- Categories/Types of Offences – Guidelines issued :

“Categories/Types of Offences

A)    Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in category B & D.

B)    Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.

C)    Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (S.37), PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), etc.

D)    Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.

REQUISITE CONDITIONS

1)       Not arrested during investigation.

2)    Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called.

(No need to forward such an accused along with the chargesheet (Siddharth Vs. State of UP, 2021 SCC online SC 615)

CATEGORY A

After filing of chargesheet/complaint taking of cognizance

a)    Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through Lawyer.

b)    If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then Bailable Warrant for physical appearance may be issued.

c)    NBW on failure to failure to appear despite issuance of Bailable Warrant.

d)    NBW may be cancelled or converted into a Bailable Warrant/Summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.

e)    Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided w/o the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.

CATEGORY B/D

On appearance of the accused in Court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.

CATEGORY C

Same as Category B & D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS S. 37, 45 PMLA, 212(6) Companies Act 43 d(5) of UAPA, POSCO etc.”

Category A deals with both police cases and complaint cases -- Trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications -- While issuing notice to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest -- This aspect would be guided by the statutory provisions.

Separate set of offences are categorized as “economic Offences” not covered by the special Acts. In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Court has observed that in determining whether to grant bail both aspects have to be taken into account:

a)       seriousness of the charge and

b)       severity of punishment.

Copy of this order ordered to be circulated to the Registrars of the different High Courts to be further circulated to the trial Courts so that the unnecessary bail matters do not come up to Supreme Court -- This is the only purpose for which guidelines issued, but they are not fettered on the powers of the Courts.

(Para 2-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66(A), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 --  Condition to pay amount of Rs.10,41,000/- to complainant – Non-compliance of – Cancellation of bail -- Order granting bail was on a condition that the petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.10,41,000/- to the complainant within a period of six months – Amount not paid, bail cancelled – Held, it is nowhere recorded that the petitioner had given any undertaking before the trial Court, as he was seeking regular bail and was in judicial custody -- Therefore, the Clause-D of the condition directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,41,000/- to the complainant was not volunteered by the petitioner and rather it was the direction given by the Additional Sessions Judge -- Petition allowed and the impugned order set aside and the petitioner order to continue to remain on regular bail.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating with FCI – Regular bail – Raid on secret information and it was found that the wheat loaded in the Truck was being unloaded at the Mill – Wheat loaded in the truck was for Government supply -- Investigation is complete and challan stands presented -- No recovery is to be made from the petitioner -- As per the allegations, petitioner was the driver of one of the truck -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time, no useful purpose would be served by depriving the personal liberty of the petitioners -- Petitioner granted bail.

(Para 2-6)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Standard prescribed for the grant of bail is ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that the person is not guilty of the offence -- Test which are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(Para 19, 20)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail by High court – Challenge to -- Respondent was travelling in the vehicle all the way from Dimapur in Nagaland to Rampur in Uttar Pradesh with the co-accused -- Complaint notes that the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the respondent indicates that the respondent was in regular touch with the other accused persons who were known to him – Quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of a commercial quantity -- Contraband was concealed in the vehicle in which the respondent was travelling with the co-accused -- High Court, apart from observing that no contraband was found from the personal search of the respondent has ignored the above circumstances – High Court has clearly overlooked crucial requirements and glossed over the circumstances which were material to the issue as to whether a case for the grant of bail was established -- In failing to do so, the order of the High Court becomes unsustainable – High Court ought to have given due weight to the seriousness and gravity of the crime which it has failed to do – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside -- Respondent shall accordingly surrender forthwith.

(Para 31-34)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless some cogent case based on some supervening circumstance is brought to the notice of a Court.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 120-B -- Cancellation of bail -- Non-recovery of dowry articles – Ground of -- Bail granted to an accused cannot be simply cancelled because of the non-recovery of some of the dowry articles.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21,61,85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 267 gms of heroin -- Weighment of the contraband was done along with two polythene bags including a lockable bag, it will certainly be debatable as to whether the recovered quantity, which was weighing 267 gms along with two bags, can actually be said to be more than 250 gms so as to qualify to be termed as ‘commercial’ quantity -- In any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of 1 year, 7 months and 15 days and trial has not even commenced, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 399, 402 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Parity in bail -- Once, the co-accused, who is similarly situated as the petitioner, has been granted the benefit of regular bail, the petitioner cannot be denied the same benefit on the ground of parity unless and until a differentiating fact between the petitioner and the said co-accused is pointed out -- Petitioner and the co-accused are similarly situated -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail on account of parity -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 452, 307, 379-B, 427, 506, 148, 149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Occurrence of 15.08.2020, both the parties received injuries including grievous ones -- Petitioner had also undergone surgery and remained hospitalized from 16.08.2020 to 27.08.2020 -- Though, complainant party received grievous injuries, it is highly debatable whether Section 307 IPC can be said to be made out or not -- Custody period of petitioner being almost a year -- Charges have not yet been framed, prosecution has cited 18 witnesses and trial will certainly take long time -- Being a case of version and cross-version, the question that which of the two parties was aggressor has to be adjudicated during trial -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 9-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- POCSO matter -- Bail to juvenile -- Rape with minor – Victim was just 01 year and 09 months old -- 11 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined -- Prima facie, there are very serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, for which the Court is not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner -- However, since the petitioner has been in custody since 09th August, 2019, the Juvenile Board/trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably, on or before 30th November, 2021.

(Para 2-4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 (27-A and 29 added later-on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular  bail -- Recovery of 50 kg 700 gram of Poppy straw weighed alongwith bag -- Petitioner is in custody since 13.11.2020, petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose, co-accused have already been extended the concession of regular bail, Challan has already been presented in the Court and since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody further, thus, he deserves the concession of bail.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Sections 10, 24 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – 377 complaints – Regular bail -- After dismissal of bail more than a year elapsed – Against a total of 377 complaints only 17 have been looked into till date and challans having been presented, investigation process may not be concluded for another couple of years -- Petitioner has already faced incarceration since 26.04.2018 -- Investigation is in progress would not be a ground to keep the petitioner indefinitely in custody -- Amount of money which is alleged to have been taken by the petitioner on account of having duped the investors/complainants would be a subject matter of trial on the basis of evidence adduced – Bail after having suffered incarceration for a period in excess of three years cannot be declined on the demand of the complainants that certain amount be first refunded to them -- Investigation/trial is bound to take time to conclude -- Petitioner is held entitled to benefit of bail.

(Para 13-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail -- Application for default bail filed, there was no challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C against the petitioner, who was in custody for a period of 94 days – Held, Court below has erred in denying default bail on the ground that evidence had already been collected and a challan presented against the other co accused and, therefore, since evidence was available – Challan presented against the co-accused clearly stated qua petitioner that he is yet to be arrested and separate challan would be prepared and presented against petitioner -- An indefeasible right accrues – No provision in the Criminal Procedure Code authorising detention of an accused in custody after the expiry of the period indicated in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 excepting the contingency indicated in Explanation I, namely, if the accused does not furnish the bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 9-11)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 115 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 376AB -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – POCSO matter -- Rape with minor – Bail to juvenile -- Petitioner was declined bail on the ground that release of the petitioner on bail would defeat the ends of justice – Held, a juvenile can be denied the concession of bail, if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12 (1) of the J.J. Act is available – J.J. Act is a beneficial legislation and gravity or seriousness of the offence would not be a ground to decline concession of bail to the juvenile – No purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner in custody -- Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 5-10)