Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21-A, 27, 29 – Supply of secret information to Pakistan -- Anticipatory bail -- Allegations against the petitioners are that they are working against the country and are involved in not only in drug smuggling but also in supplying the secret information of the Indian Army to the Pakistan – Army and the para-military personnel are loosing their lives when cross-border firing happens and the allegations in the FIR that the accused persons are passing on the information of training and movement of the Indian Army make them soft target by the Pakistani agencies -- Petitioners deserves no concession of pre-arrest bail – Petitions dismissed.

(Para 11-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount of Rs. 5 lacs – Held, 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 – Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days, on doing so, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court and further subject to the condition that he would deposit Rs. 1.00 lac with the trial Court by way of demand draft in favour of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and the said demand draft be deposited in a fixed deposit with bank, fetching the maximum rate of interest.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 160, 438, 482 – Blanket Anticipatory bail – Alleged,  due to participation in the protest of the Farmers' Bill, 2020, the police are running after petitioners to implicate in some false case apart from harassing and humiliating them by conducting raids at their houses under the influence of the senior leaders of the ruling party -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case or opining on the veracity of the allegations the petition disposed of with a direction that in case the presence of the petitioners is required in connection with the investigation of any case, procedure as contemplated under Section 160 Cr.P.C be strictly followed.

(Para 3,4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 437, 439 – Statutory/ Default bail granted – Challan filed before submitting bail bonds – Cancellation of bail -- Before petitioner could furnish his bail bonds the challan was filed at about 5.00 p.m., following which, the statutory bail already granted was cancelled vide the impugned order – Impugned order set aside and a direction passed upon the Ld. Court below to accept the bail bonds, if any, in compliance of the previous order granting him statutory bail – Held, cancellation can only be ordered on merits of the case u/s 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C., and not merely on account of the fact that challan had been presented by the I.O after the said order was passed.

(Para 2-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 201, 420, 465 467, 471, 472 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating and forgery – Regular bail -- Prosecution would have to secure sufficient documentary evidence to establish a case -- No purpose would be served by continuing the custodial incarceration of either of these persons at this stage as their further interrogation not required -- Petitions allowed, direction given to release both the petitioners on regular bail

(Para 8,9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Gang rape – No physical act by petitioner – Regular bail -- As to whether or not the petitioner had any role to play in the commission of the offence by co-accused, would have to be determined by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial -- As matters stand, the medical evidence supports the innocence of the petitioner in so far as the actual physical commission of the offence is concerned -- Trial is bound to be delayed, owing to the present situation caused by the pandemic -- Petition allowed, direction given to release of the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 5-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Commercial quantity -- Conviction for R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1 lac – Suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal – 66 kgs poppy husk allegedly recovered from the cabin of the truck – Appeal admitted along with stay of recovery of fine on 20.02.2020 – Applicant/appellant no. 1 already undergone 02 years, 03 months and 03 days of actual sentence as on 19.08.2020 -- He is not involved in any other NDPS case, though he is involved in the offence under IPC -- Appeal is of the year 2020, it may take some time in its final culmination -- Application allowed -- Remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant No.1 ordered to be suspended, during the pendency of the appeal.

(Para 3-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 404, 392, 34 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2018; statement of material witness has been recorded and the courts are not functioning at their full strength due to Covid-19 pandemic, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 29, 61, 85 – Commercial quantity – Recovery of 350 grams intoxicant powder, having salt Diacetylmorphine – Regular bail -- Regular trials are not being taken up by the trial Courts -- Accordingly, considering the long custody of about 2 years, 3 months and 15 days, there being no other case against the petitioner and the trial not likely to be concluded in the near future on account of Covid-19 pandemic, High Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 9, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 427, 435, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Proclaimed offender – Regular bail -- During investigation, petitioner was found to be innocent -- Challan was presented against co-accused -- In a criminal complaint petitioner was also summoned and was ultimately declared as proclaimed offender – Challan as well as criminal complaint were clubbed and co-accused were convicted – Petitioner being P.O., FIR u/s 174-A IPC was recorded -- Petitioner has been granted bail in the said FIR -- Petitioner was also granted bail in FIR u/s 25/54/59 of Arms Act and was released on bail -- Without adverting to the merits of the case, it can be appreciated that the petitioner was found to be innocent in FIR and his name was placed in column No.2 -- It was only in a criminal complaint that the petitioner was summoned along with others --Complicity of the petitioner would remain debatable -- It would be just and appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 2-15)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 366 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Kidnapping – Appellants facilitating procurement of Sim Card – Conspiracy – Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Sim card was allegedly used by co-accused and his colleagues in the commission of offence of kidnapping -- Whether the appellant was a party to the agreement to do or caused to do the illegal act of kidnapping to be a member of the criminal conspiracy -- No substantial evidence that the appellant was aware that the sim card would be later on or was likely to be used in the commission of the offence of kidnapping -- Sentence suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal pending before High Court.

(Para 4-6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-A, 120-B -- Conspiracy cannot be assumed from a set of unconnected facts or from a set of conduct at different places and times without a reasonable link.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 364, 148, 149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 -- Murder case – Proclaimed offender – Regular bail – Acquittal of other co-accused – Petitioner initially was declared a proclaimed offender/person but has been arrested and is now in custody for more than nine months – None of the witnesses out of the 13 prosecution witnesses cited, has been examined, with the prevailing pandemic, where the Courts are working in a restricted mode, the trial is not likely to commence soon or conclude in near future, the present petition is allowed – Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-5)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 1, 14 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail -- Allegations as per the FIR are that police on secret information got recovered 100 litre of Lahan from room adjoining residential house of petitioner – As per petitioner false case has been planted against him and he is a simple agriculturist and is not involved in any other case and therefore, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation at all -- Petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C and would not make any default in this regard.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 420 – Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), Sections 63, 65 -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 7 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating and copy-right case – Regular bail -- Petitioner acquitted in 5 cases -- Nominated by co-accused from whom the recovery effected -- Petitioner is not a manufacturer and is only stated to be a licensed supplier – Arrested on 5.7.2020, investigation is complete, the challan presented, conclusion of trial is likely to consume some time particularly, on account of restricted functioning of the Courts due to Covid-19 pandemic -- Ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

A. Binding precedent -- Power of smaller Bench to say ‘per incuriam’ – A judgement may be held to be per incuriam in case it failed to notice an earlier binding precedent which covered the field -- Even in such a situation a smaller Bench cannot say that the judgement of a larger Bench is per incuriam -- The only course available to it is to make a reference to the larger Bench.

(Para 10)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A(4) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167, 173 -- NDPS case – Challan without report of the Chemical Examiner/Forensic Science Laboratory -- Incomplete challan -- Default bail -- By virtue of the doctrine of stare decisis, the Single Bench judgements in Akash Kumar alias Sunny (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14977) and Shankar (CRM No. M-44412 of 2019/20th December 2019) are binding as they lay down a proposition of law although at variance with the law laid down by the Division Bench in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121) -- Smaller Bench could not have declared the judgement of a larger Bench to be per incuriam -- Judicial discipline demands that a reference be made to a Division Bench regarding the validity and correctness of the aforementioned Single Bench judgements -- File sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a request to constitute a Division Bench for consideration of this matter -- Meanwhile, direction given that petitioner be released on bail

(Para 11,12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Marriage between the deceased and the petitioner was solemnized about 12 years before the alleged occurrence and the deceased committed suicide at the place of her brother and not in her matrimonial home -- Investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented – Petitioner is behind the bars since 08.06.2020 and the trial of the case is likely to take quite some time to conclude, especially in the circumstances when the functioning of the Courts has been restricted in the wake of the outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19 -- Without expressing any opinion on the merits, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307, 506, 427 and 120B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) -- Attempt to murder – Addition of section – Bail to accused -- Section 307 IPC does not have new genesis in the case – Earlier, police in their own wisdom had chosen to delete Section 307 IPC from the case -- On the same set of facts, the petitioner was earlier arrested, but granted bail pending trial -- Now again; merely on invoking of Section 307 IPC, Court below ordering the arrest of the petitioner – No justification for taking the petitioner into custody – Petition allowed -- In case the petitioner appears before the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate on or before 06.10.2020, then the petitioner shall be released on bail pending trial u/s 307 IPC.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 323, 325, 452, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Five co-accused have been declared to be innocent by the Police -- Challan has been presented, but charges have not been framed so far -- Looking to the facts and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic and without adverting to the merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 3-6)

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 -- Out of 13 prosecution witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined and 5 have been given up -- Petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2020 after availing an interim bail – Looking to the facts and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic and without adverting to the merits of the case, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 7-10)

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 -- Petitioner is in custody since 11.12.2019 -- Trial is likely to consume considerable time in the wake of outbreak of global pandemic, namely, COVID-19 -- Apart from that, the courts are not fully functional and are doing minimal working -- Further detention behind the bars may not be justified -- Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, Court ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail. Ravi Kumar’s case 2019 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 714 relied.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376-D, 420, 367, 370 – Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (Punjab Act No. 2 of 2013), Section 13 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Complainant has not supported the case of prosecution -- Trial is likely to take some time to conclude as owing to novel corona virus pandemic, Courts are not working at their full strength and ordinary hearing matters are not being taken up -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 336, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 and 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Injured has fully recovered -- Petitioner is in custody for over 02 years and 05 months -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 308, 323, 341, 148, 149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No 'grievous injury' was found to have been sustained by the complainant – One injury on the middle of head was opined to have been dangerous to life – Petitioner alleged to have given a blow with base ball bat on the left side of head of the complainant -- Petitioner having been behind bars since the last more than 7 months and not having been attributed the injury, which has been declared as dangerous to life,  further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 452, 427, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Proclaimed offender – Acquittal of other co-accused – Pendency of 9 other cases – Regular bail -- Petitioner was declared P.O. on 24.04.2011 and he surrendered on 15.01.2020 – Other three accused acquitted after trial, complainant turned hostile and other alleged eye-witness was not even examined -- Held, fate of the case practically stands sealed by the acquittal judgment in relation to the co-accused of the petitioner -- There is no possibility of the case improving against the petitioner at this stage -- Mere pendency of other FIRs may not be reason enough to deny bail to him -- Securing his custody for the purpose of the other cases through the process of this case would not be a lawful measure -- Petition allowed – Direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 1-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 307, 452, 188, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail – Simple injuries and blunt in nature and no fire-arm injury attributed to the petitioner -- Recovery of pistol effected from the petitioner and there are several FIRs against him -- He is in custody since 06.04.2020, no grievous injury amounting to offence u/s 307 IPC -- After presentation of challan on 29.05.2020, 16 witnesses are required to be examined -- Trial is not likely to conclude in near future keeping in view COVID-19 situation -- No need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- As per FIR, the petitioner and the co-accused have given a lathi blow on the head of deceased – Held, trial Court is yet to decide the culpability of the accused as which of the accused i.e. the petitioner or the co-accused has caused injury on the head of the deceased, as it is conceded case of the parties that there is only one injury on the head of the deceased -- Petitioner being in custody for about 3 years and 9 months and on account of prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation, there is a remote possibility for resumption of regular trial in the coming time – Petitioner admitted on regular bail.

(Para 7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 17 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 368, 372, 373 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Neither the prosecutrix nor her father supported the case and declared hostile -- In her statement u/s 164 CrPC, which was recorded on the same date of registration of FIR, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that the petitioner has not committed rape upon her --  Petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2019 and due to Covid-19, trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(n) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2019 and statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as owing to novel corona virus pandemic, Courts are not working at their full strength and ordinary hearing matters are not being taken up -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars – Petition allowed -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Recovery of 126 kg of poopy husk from co-accused -- Regular bail -- Name of the petitioner has surfaced in the case during interrogation through the disclosure statement of the co-accused -- Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he was not even named in the secret information – Petition allowed -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3, 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dowry death – Regular bail -- Wife committed suicide after more than 6 years and 7 months of the marriage – Complainant has partly been examined and mother-in-law of the deceased has been summoned in the case u/s 319 CrPC -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2018 and due to Covid-19, trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Regular bail -- Earlier released on bail, however jumped the bail – Declared Proclaimed offender – Keeping in view the fact that most of the material witnesses have been examined and the petitioner is in custody with a minor child coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as owing to novel corona virus pandemic, Courts are not working at their full strength and ordinary hearing matters are not being taken up, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed – Direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- NDPS matter – Large period of custody during pendency of appeal -- Suspension of sentence -- Rigors of Section 37 would have to be met before the sentence of a convict is suspended and bail granted and mere passage of time cannot be a reason for the same.

(Para 4, 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Out of total 21 witnesses, 04 witnesses have already been examined –Trial is likely to take some time to conclude and in view of the facts that the petitioner is in custody since 01.10.2017 and that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the courts are not working at their full strength, 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 ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3-5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- 650 tablets of Clovidol-100SR recovered – Charge has been framed but no witness has been examined -- Considering the quantity of contraband recovered being marginally above the commercial quantity and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time, without any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-6)

Electricity Act, 2003 (No.36 of 2003), Section 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 -- Regular bail in 21 cases -- Onerous and impossible conditions imposed for bail – Inherent power of High Court – Exercise of – Condition imposed of furnishing Rs.50,000/- as bail bond with one local surety for the like amount in each of the 21 FIRs is certainly an onerous condition, as in effect it will mean that he will have to furnish Rs.10,50,000/- as bail bonds with a local surety for the like amount in totality -- Fit case for invoking inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- Impugned orders set aside – Petitioner shall furnish one surety in one case for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and two sureties for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs each, which sureties, would be applicable for all 21 cases -- Petitioner, in any case, shall furnish separate personal bonds in all 21 cases -- Upon the same being furnished, the petitioner ordered to be released on bail forthwith.

(Para 1,8-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 460, 34 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Blind murder wherein none had seen any of the accused -- Petitioners sought to be nominated on the basis of disclosure statements made by the co-accused, who came to be arrested after 9 months of the occurrence and that too after recording of statement of daughter of the deceased – Veracity and admissibility of such statement would certainly be debatable -- Petitioners are not even stated to be involved in any other case, their further detention would not serve any useful purpose -- Petitioners ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2) N, 452 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- FIR to the effect that about 20-25 days ago, petitioner entered prosecutrix’s house on finding her alone and committed rape upon her and started blackmailing her and whenever her husband went outside from the house, the petitioner used to rape her -- They also moved application against the petitioner before the police and a compromise was got effected but the petitioner did not mend his ways -- Petitioner was harassing her since last five months – Prosecutrix has not disputed the correctness of the affidavit submitted by the her -- In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation, affidavit of the prosecutrix 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, concession of regular bail extended to the petitioner.

(Para 2-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 341, 354C, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 25.01.2020 -- Allegations of rape and criminal intimidation are against co-accused -- In the FIR, no overt act has been attributed to the petitioner and his involvement in the offence has surfaced on the basis of disclosure statement of prime accused -- No obscene material has been found in the mobile recovered from the petitioner -- His another co-accused has already been granted bail and on the ground of parity alone, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail -- That apart, investigation is over and commencement of trial is still awaited -- In the current pandemic scenario, the trial of the case is not likely either to start or get over soon – Taking wholesome view of the matter, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 4,5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 384, 406, 420 – Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 -- Anticipatory bail – First application for anticipatory bail declined -- Second application after compromise -- Complainant has expressed his no objection to the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners – Petitioners are granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(Para 2, 7,8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 506, 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 14(2) -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66E, 67E -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Unnatural offence – Recording of – Regular bail -- Petitioner alleged to have recorded the act when the co-accused was committing the heinous act – Actual act is alleged against co-accused – Petitioner is in custody since 14.6.2019 – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1, 4, 5)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 1, 2(12)(13)(20)(35), 8, 12, 15, 18, 19, 102 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Child in conflict with law – Regular bail – Maintainability of -- Whether a child in conflict with law, who is being tried as an adult for the purpose of trial u/s 18(3) of the J.J. Act, could maintain an application for grant of regular bail under Section 12 of the J.J. Act or u/s 439 Cr.P.C. before the Children’s Court and the High Court – Held, an application for grant of bail to a Child apprehended or detained by the police will be entertained by the J.J. Board u/s 12 of the J.J. Act and an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. before the Children’s Court will not be maintainable.

(Para 9-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B -- Snatching with hurt – Regular bail -- Submission that except the disclosure statement of co-accused, there is no other evidence as after the arrest of the petitioner, nothing was recovered from him to connect him with the crime -- Petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 10 months and challan stands presented, charges are yet to be framed -- Petitioner has no history of any criminal background and this is the first case registered against him and no test identification of the petitioner was conducted -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case and the prosecution evidence is yet to start -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-10)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61(1), 61(1) (14) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Excise matter – Anticipatory bail – Recovery of lahan -- Interim bail on contention that version projected by the prosecution is verbatim as in the second FIR in which also the petitioner is a co-accused, FIR registered on the basis of secret information, no independent witness has been joined, even though 180 Kgs. of Lahan is alleged to be found at the spot but the police separated only 5 Kgs. Lahan on the plea that the remaining was not to be lifted and was destroyed at the spot – Petitioner has since joined investigation and is not required for any custodial interrogation -- Petition allowed, interim order made absolute.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 8, 10, 12 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(W) (I) (II) & 3 (W) (2) (V) – Aggravated sexual assault -- Challan presented and charges stand framed – In view of the restricted working of the Courts due to pandemic COVID-19 situation, the trial is likely to take some time and petitioner in custody since 05.09.2019 and that out of 16 total witnesses 04 witnesses including the material witnesses have been examined and substantial length of custody i.e. incarceration for a period of one year, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter – 2nd petition for regular bail -- Recovery of 217 kgs of poppy husk -- Petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2018, conclusion of trial may take a sufficient long time -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail during pendency of trial.

(Para 2-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS matter – Regular bail – Recovery of 84.5 grams of opium from co-accused – Disclosure by him that contraband was purchased by him from petitioner – Keeping in view the fact that it is a case of recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband and that the petitioner was never arrested at the spot and has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement, the veracity and admissibility of which would be debatable -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4, 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 302, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Complainant, who is author of the FIR, has furnished an affidavit that neither there was any quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased nor the petitioner gave any beating to the deceased -- Petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2019 -- Moreover, the case is pending before the trial Court for recording prosecution evidence since 16.03.2020 and in view of COVID-19 pandemic, no evidence is being recorded -- Reference in FIR that the complainant has named the petitioner on the basis of an inquiry – Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 11,12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366, 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC has stated that she wants to take the case back and wants to marry the petitioner -- Furthermore, she has refused to get herself medically examined -- Considering the fact that the petitioner, who is 19 years of age, is in custody since 15.02.2020 and his culpability is yet to be established during trial, which is not likely to be concluded in near future -- Court deemed appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail – Petition allowed.

(Para 6,7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 16 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Kidnapping -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2019, investigation is complete and challan has already been presented -- Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the courts are not functioning at their full strength -- No useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(B)(II) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS matter – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1 kg and 600 grams of Ganja Phul Patti, which is marginally higher than the small quantity -- No other case pending against the petitioner under the NDPS Act -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 14.06.2020 and the trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, court deemed appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(Para 3,4)