Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 29 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 70 strips of Clovidol (each strip containing 10 tablets) i.e. total 700 intoxicant tablets – No other case pending or registered, petitioner in custody since 16.01.2020 -- Not disputed that recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally higher than commercial quantity -- Challan was presented on 10.07.2020, trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Without commenting anything on the merits, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85, 37 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, Rule 66 -- NDPS case – Recovery of commercial quantity of 70 injections of Pheniramine Maleate 10 ml Avil and 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 2 ml each – Contention that the same would not constitute an offence as the same was required to be used for personal medical use (although recovery denied) – Provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory in nature, however, departure can certainly be made in case the conditions contained in the aforesaid section itself are satisfied -- First condition being that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application and Second condition being that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable doubts for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and both these conditions are co-existent.

-- State was granted opportunity and time was also granted for filing of reply but the same was not filed.

-- So far as the condition of existence of any reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence is concerned, would be a debatable issue as it is also subject to fulfillment of ingredients of first proviso to Rule 66(2) of NDPS Rules. In case Rule 66(2) of NDPS Rules is applied in the case then the same would be a reasonable ground and something more than prima facie ground to believe at this stage that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence.

-- Apart from this, the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than two years and is not involved in any other case at present is also a relevant factor. Keeping in view the above facts and totatility of circumstances of case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition allowed.

Petitioner granted the concession of regular bail.

(Para 7-10, 26, 27)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for the last two years and one month; recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally more than the commercial quantity and that trial is not proceeding because of limited working of the courts due to Covid-19 pandemic, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 50, 61 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Recovery of 500 grams of ‘Heroin’ from pocket of jacket – Regular bail -- Offer as to whether petitioner wishes his search to be effected in the presence of some Gazetted Officer of the “Police Department” -- It would be debatable as to whether the provisions of Sections 50 NDPS Act stand complied with in letter and spirit or not -- In any case since the petitioner has already been behind bars for a substantial period of 2 years and 10 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 392, 394, 34 – Robbery and voluntary causing hurt while committing robbery – Compromise between parties -- Regular bail – Petitioners assaulted complainant and snatched Rs.8000/- from him -- One of petitioner took knife out from his pocket and inserted it in stomach -- Petitioners were arrested on 27.05.2020 and challan was presented on 23.7.2020 – In compromise deed respondent No.2-complainant has stated that he has not received any serious injury and the compromise has been effected between both the parties – Petitions allowed, petitioners directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 34, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder -- Version and cross-version case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant and his wife by paying Rs.50,000/- each towards medical expenses subject to final outcome of the case -- Without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2020; investigation is complete and it is to be decided during the trial, as to who was the aggressor party, this petition allowed and direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B  -- Snatching case – Regular bail – Petitioner in custody since 10.08.2020 not involved in any other criminal case – Complainant has given affidavit that the present petitioner was not involved in the alleged commission of offence – Final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. presented and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars – Above all, conclusion of the trial will take some time keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation – Petition allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 17 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 346, 365 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape with minor girl – Regular bail -- Argued that prosecutrix in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., did not name the petitioner and on the basis of a supplementary statement, the petitioner was named as a person, who had also ravished her along with one B – B declared as a juvenile and released on bail, while further contending that FSL would reflect that human semen has been detected on an exhibit pertaining to B and not the petitioner – Held, material witnesses have been examined and that conclusion of trial will take sufficient time, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars – Petition allowed and direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Bail on incomplete facts -- Cancellation of bail -- It is the duty of the Court to consider the entire actual facts and circumstances and then decide whether a particular accused is entitled for the grant of bail or not -- At the time of grant of bail to respondent No.2, the recovery of the knife and the corresponding injuries upon the deceased were not brought to the knowledge of the Court and were not taken into consideration -- When the said facts brought to the notice of the Court by the State, the same have been declared as insignificant so as to review the order granting bail – Held, once, a recovery of knife has been attributed to respondent No.2 as per his own disclosure statement and admittedly, there are corresponding injuries with the said weapon, which are fatal in nature received by the deceased on his head, the said facts cannot be treated as insignificant for considering the grant or cancellation of bail, especially when a person has lost his life -- Order granting bail cannot be sustained – Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender before the jail authority.

(Para 7-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 29 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188, 269 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 24, 25, 59 – NDPS case – Regular bail – Allegation against the petitioner is that he had given Rs.3 lacs to the co-accused for bringing the said narcotics – Petitioner was not arrested from the spot as his name cropped up only in the disclosure statement of the co-accused – Legality and sanctity of which, is to be examined during the time of trial – No recovery was effected from the petitioner – Question of payment of Rs.3 lacs is a matter of evidence – Petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2020, final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. stands presented and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars – Moreover, conclusion of the trial will take some time keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation – Petition allowed.

(Para 1, 2, 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22-B, 61, 85 – NDPS case – Recovery of 610 capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride -- Regular bail -- FSL report is awaited -- There is no other case pending against the petitioner -- Court deemed it appropriate to release him on interim bail till the receipt of FSL report -- Petition disposed of and the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail. Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 relied.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Allegation against the petitioner is that she was present at the scene of occurrence and the injury caused to the deceased, if any, is attributed to her husband -- Moreover, as against 32 witnesses cited, only one witness has been examined -- Petitioner being lady and is in custody for more than 1 year, Court deemed it appropriate to admit her on bail.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302/120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Murder case – Regular  bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2019 -- Injury has not been given by the petitioner, rather the stab blow which led to the death was given by JS -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in the company of the co-accused at naka that too day after the occurrence -- Culpability of the petitioner is yet to be established during trial -- Court deemed it appropriate to admit him on bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner admitted on regular bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 57 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Only attribution to the petitioner is lalkara -- Petitioner in custody from the last 01 year and 02 months -- Out of 28 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date -- Trial will take time to conclude because of COVID-19 pandemic -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, 307, 447, 506, 511, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Murder case -- Second petition for regular bail – Considering allegation against the petitioner is of pelting of stone and the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than 2 years and 4 month, coupled with the fact that out of the total 83 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 23 witnesses have been examined so far and trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B read with Section 34 -- Dowry death – Regular bail to husband -- Petitioner is employed in Army and was posted at faraway place at the time when the occurrence took place -- Family members of the petitioner found to be innocent and were exonerated by police -- Prima facie debatable questions as to whether any dowry demand was made by the petitioner and whether the deceased was subjected to any cruelty by the petitioner shortly before her death are involved -- Adjudication of these questions on the basis of evidence to be produced during the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of infection of Covid-19 – Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376-D, 506 – Rape with married woman – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody since 18.10.2019 and due to the outbreak of the pandemic Covid-19 the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future – Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner -- Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365, 120-B, 201, 302, 34, 364-A, 404 – Abduction matter – Regular bail -- Petitioner nominated as an accused on the basis of some secret information received subsequently, the veracity and admissibility of which would be debatable -- Also petitioner has already been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 8 months and none of the cited 16 PWs has been examined and co-accused has already been released on bail – Petition accepted, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 395, 397, 120-B, 365, 412, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail – Petitioner in custody since 14.05.2019 -- Petitioner was not named in the FIR and was implicated on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused -- Petitioner is involved in one more case of similar nature -- In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and evidence against the petitioner, the period of his custody and the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of infection of Covid-19 but without commenting on the merits of the case, Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 3-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 379-A, 506 IPC -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Gold snatching case -- Regular bail on compromise -- Matter is stated to have been amicably resolved amongst the parties who are otherwise stated to be closely related -- Petition accepted, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 341, 148, 149, 342, 379-B, 506 – Snatching matter -- Anticipatory bail -- Interim bail granted as the allegation of snatching has been alleged against other accused only and no allegation of snatching is attributed to the petitioner in the FIR – On direction, petitioner joined the Investigaiton, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required -- Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court considered that the petitioner deserves the grant of anticipatory bail -- Petition allowed and order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 2-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 27, 29 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 90 vials of Wincirex Syrup each 100 ml, 120 vials of Wincirex Syrup each 100 ml, 120 vials of KOPFREE Syrup each 100 ml, 210 strips of tablets of Carisomia tablets each of 10, total 2100 and 95 strips of tablets of Clovidol 100 SR tablets each of 10, total 950 tablets – On disclosure statement that aforesaid drugs were to be supplied to P and petitioner, petitioner came to be nominated as an accused -- Petitioner was never arrested at the spot -- Disclosure statement made by co-accused, the admissibility and veracity of which would be debatable -- Petition accepted and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1, 2, 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452 and 307 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Proclaimed offender -- Petitioner was summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C -- Alleged co-accused had been acquitted -- Although, the petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court during the trial but due to his absence for a period of 1½ months was declared as proclaimed offender -- Petitioner himself surrendered and join the proceedings -- Considering the totality of circumstances petition allowed -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 9,10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case -- Recovery of 950 intoxicating tablets -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Over a period of nearly two years, only five witnesses have been examined by prosecution -- Apart from it, there is no other NDPS case against the petitioner or under any other penal laws -- Petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.12.2018 and his further detention may not be necessary for any useful purpose – Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2, 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 34 – Murder case – Regular bail -- No post-mortem examination was conducted on the body of the deceased -- Co-accused has allegedly made extra judicial confession that he along with the petitioner who is wife of the deceased and co-other accused committed murder and hanged his dead body but he partly resiled by stating in his statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. that deceased was already dead before he reached his house -- Case involves debatable questions as to admissibility and evidentiary value of said confessional statement of co-accused against the petitioner -- Apart from the above said confessional statement prima facie there is no other cogent incriminating evidence as to cause of death of the deceased and involvement of the petitioner in the crime – Similarly placed co-accused has already been granted regular bail -- Trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19 and also that further detention of the petitioner in custody not being punitive will not serve any useful purpose, but without commenting on the merits of the case, Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 1,9,10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 120-B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Incriminating role of the petitioner as disclosed in the supplementary statement of complainant after about 8 days of the death of the deceased is basically that she had conspired and connived with the co-accused and is not stated to have herself murdered the deceased -- Petitioner is a lady, who has been behind bars since the last about 11 months and conclusion of trial is likely to take time as none of the cited 28 PWs has been examined -- Further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition accepted, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7,8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Bail opposed on the ground that the recovered quantity of Salt as well as the tablets fall in commercial quantity -- Only 5 witnesses have been examined so far out of total 15 witnesses – Court found that the investigation of the case is complete, but the trial is progressing at a slow pace -- Outbreak of global pandemic COVID-19 may further delay the conclusion of trial -- Petitioner in judicial custody 29.7.2018 and his further detention may not be necessary for any useful purpose -- Without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 342, 364, 148, 149 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Contention that FIR on the statement of the injured/ deceased was recorded after 04 days of alleged occurrence -- As per the medico-legal examination most of the injuries were opined to be simple in nature while other injuries sustained by the injured were kept under observation -- It was a case of medico-legal injuries with acute renal failure -- Hence, his death could not be linked with the occurrence in question, much less, to the injuries allegedly sustained by him in the occurrence in question -- Only 02 out of the 16 prosecution witnesses cited so far have been examined till date – Petitioner has been in custody since 23.10.2018 and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future more so in the wake of outbreak of pandemic Covid-19 -- Petition allowed and the petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 1-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of non-commercial quantity -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Investigation has been completed and challan presented, completion of trial will take some time -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of benefit of regular bail as keeping him behind the bars will serve no purpose, especially, when petitioner undertakes that he will maintain good conduct while on bail -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 342, 506, 120-B – Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape with minor – Regular bail -- Contention that FIR was registered due to misunderstanding and settlement has been arrived at -- As per the medico legal report, the prosecutrix did not suffer any internal or external injury – AAG, has informed the Court that on the vaginal swabs also, no semen was detected -- Petitioner is in detention since 19.07.2020, on completion of the investigation, the challan has already been presented -- Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the aforesaid facts, direction given to release the petitioner on bail.

(Para 1-6)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 78(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 90 boxes of country made liquor/total 1080 bottles for sale in Haryana only, were recovered from boot of white coloured Duster which was driven by co-accused and the petitioner was sitting on the conductor seat -- Petitioner in judicial custody since 07.09.2020 -- Investigation of the case is complete and the final report stands filed -- Considering the above background, custody of the petitioner and the fact that the offences are triable by Magistrate, Court found that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail -- Outbreak of pandemic COVID-19 in the region may further delay the conclusion of trial -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case – Default bail -- Recovery of 1300 tablets of Alprozolam and 1000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride -- Incomplete challan was presented in the Court -- No request was submitted to the said Court by the Investigating Agency seeking extension of time for the purpose of investigation of the case -- On the expiry of a period of 180 days, the accused has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court seeking default bail – Subsequent presentation of the report of FSL will not extinguish the right of the petitioner to seek a default bail -- Petitioner held entitled to the benefit of default bail.

(Para 14-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 120-B, 148, 149, 506 -- Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 52 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been attributed only a simple injury on one person, in what was possibly a “free for all” fight in the jail -- Consequently, petition allowed.

(Para 3,4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 308, 325, 506 – Grievous hurt -- Regular bail -- As far as petitioners are concerned, no specific role has been attributed to them -- As per allegations in FIR, specific injuries have been attributed to other accused -- Only one injury suffered was fracture on arm attracts Section 325 IPC -- Considering that petitioners are in custody since 18.9.2020, no useful purpose will be served by detaining petitioners behind bars till the conclusion of trial -- Petition allowed, petitioners ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4,5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell – Criminal breach of trust -- Dispute has traits of a civil dispute -- Complainant cannot allege cheating or criminal breach of trust against petitioner on the basis of agreement to sell entered where the petitioner was never a party to said agreement -- In receipt, it was specifically mentioned that registry will be done after vacation of stay -- Petition allowed.

(Para 6-8)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Civil Dispute – Registration of FIR – Misuse of criminal process -- Held, there is prevailing tendency to paint civil disputes as criminal acts for applying pressure to settle the issue -- Alternative route adopted is considered to be a short cut to the civil litigation -- Number of cases involving pure and simple money recovery, specific performance issues or such like matters, FIRs are being registered by the police authorities -- In order to avoid harassment in the matters involving civil disputes, it is need of the hour that the police department at the appropriate level, looks into the process of registering FIR, especially in matters having tone of civil dispute -- It is expected that the matter would be looked into and necessary steps would be taken.

(Para 10, 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Report of SIT that the police had collected call detail records of the accused and had found that the petitioner was present near Mansa Devi Mandir at the time of the alleged occurrence of 10.4.2018 where he had also got petrol filled up while using his credit card -- It was further found that even as on 24.6.2018 i.e. the second incident of alleged rape, the petitioner was present at different shops as per the call detail records, tower location and as per the purchases made by him at different shops -- SIT also could not find any substance in the allegations of the alleged abortion of the victim – Petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 3 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1,6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- 193 kg of Poppy husk recovered – Regular bail -- Conscious possession -- Petitioner was not found at the spot from where the ‘Poppy Husk’ in question was recovered and even the premises in question do not belong to the petitioner, it will be debatable as to whether the petitioner can be attributed conscious possession of the contraband so recovered -- Petition, as such  accepted and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 489-A, 489-B, 34 -- Fake currency case -- Regular bail -- Petitioner was found in possession of fake currency to the tune of Rs.7000/- -- Investigation is complete and challan already stands filed – Petitioner is behind bars since the last more than 2 ½ months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition, as such, accepted and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302/34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Submission that it is a case of blind murder where no one had actually witnessed the murder – ‘V’ is now sought to be projected as an eye witness -- Neither the complainant nor complainant’s son in their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. have made any reference to the aforesaid ‘V’ or have stated regarding any other person having witnessed the murder – ‘V’ is yet to be examined – Held, petitioner is a lady and had been behind bars since the last about 11 months and is not involved in any other case, further detention will not serve any useful purpose -- Petition accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Crime against child – Rape case – Regular bail -- Girl in question is presently residing at the house of the petitioner coupled with her duly sworn affidavit and which could not be displaced by the State -- Thus, a debatable issue arises over the applicability of offences u/s 363, 366-A, 376 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of POCSO Act -- Accordingly, the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29 , 50 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Non-compliance of Section 50 -- Offer of search through Gazetted Officer of Police Department -- It would be debatable as to whether the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act had been complied with in its true letter & spirit especially when the offer extended appears to be given in restricted manner – In any case, the petitioner has been behind bars since last 1 year -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 120-B – Criminal breach of trust and cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Submission that the petitioner is not in possession of the JCB machine, as there was an agreement between N and the complainant and the said JCB machine has been handed over to N, petitioner has given his specimen signatures for verification to the Investigating Officer for comparison with the signatures on the said agreement -- In view of the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation, order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute – Petition allowed.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 346/34, 302, 364, 201, 411, 404, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Contention that dead-body, over which, the Post Mortem was conducted, was not actually identified by anyone, including the complainant -- Charges were framed in the Ld. Trial Court as far back on 17.01.2020, thereafter, the prosecution evidence could not commence, on account of onset of Covid-19 pandemic, although as many as 34 witnesses have been cited in the challan -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable short period of time due to prevailing Pandemic – In view of the detention undergone by the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner for regular bail allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner, is in custody for 1 year and 2 months – Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars grant of bail to an accused, who has committed the offence u/s 19, 24, 27-A and to accused from whom recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband is effected -- Petitioner has been indicted on the basis of the statement of co-accused in custody and not arrested on the spot -- No recovery from the petitioner, except empty plastic pouches and zippers – Petitioner is first offender and aged person -- Whether or not the petitioner had conspired and was the ultimate beneficiary/receiver of the contraband is to be established on the basis of evidence led during the trial -- Charges are yet to be framed -- Trial will take time to conclude, especially due to prevailing situation of Covid-19 -- Thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 9-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 336, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Raising lalkara -- Regular bail -- Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation, role attributed to the petitioner who is alleged to have merely raised lalkara and is not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased or his sons and no other overt-act is attributed to him and the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19 – Concession of regular bail extended.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is alleged to have hurled a brick bat at the deceased -- Husband of the petitioner was alleged to have caused a blow with a sword on the nose of the deceased and had also pushed him from the roof -- Husband of the petitioner committed suicide while in custody -- Petitioner is a widow with two minor children and she has joined investigation, the order granting interim bail to her is made absolute.

(Para 8,9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-D, 377 – Gang rape case -- Suspension of sentence -- Conviction for 20 years – Applicant has already undergone more than 5 years and 4 months of his actual sentence -- There are many debatable points in the appeal and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation -- Appeal is already admitted, application allowed and remaining sentence of applicant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A and 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction for 12 years in FIR u/s 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POSCO Act – Suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal -- 3 year 10 months sentence undergone – No date or time about the incident given by the victim -- Prosecutrix was got recovered by the police after a period of more than 5 months -- Specific stand of the applicant-appellant that there were friendly relations between them -- Victim has deposed that she was kept in a rented room for about five months -- Thus, she has every opportunity to escape from the custody of the applicant during the said period -- No specific proof of age of the victim -- Many debatable points in the appeal, which is not likely to be heard in near future keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation -- Application allowed and further sentence of applicant-appellant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(n) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Rape case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner and the complainant resided together for a period of 8 months with the knowledge of their parents – Further submission that both had decided to marry, yet on account of some temperamental differences, the marriage could not be solemnized, consensual relationship and the same cannot be said to attract the offence u/s 376(2)(n) of IPC and backtracking from the promise of marriage would at the most be an act of promiscuity. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar’s case (2019) 9 SCC 608 relied – Interim protection given directing the petitioner to join the investigation -- Petitioner joined the investigation and is now not required for any further investigation -- Petition allowed and the order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail -- Contention of complainant that the specific role has been attributed to the petitioner, is a matter to be appreciated during the course of trial -- Considering the fact that the petitioner has joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is no more required, petition allowed and the interim order made absolute.

(Para 2,7)