Regular bail -- Petitioner nominated as an accused on secret information received subsequently, the veracity and admissibility of which would be debatable -- Petitioner 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 – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Regular bail -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and the fact that the prosecutrix has given statement that she has gone on its own with the accused, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Allegation that deceased committed suicide on receiving threats by petitioner -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.01.2020; he is not involved in any other case; the trial is not proceeding due to Covid-19 situation and also in view of the fact that matter stands compromised between the complainant and petitioner, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.12.2020

Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and recovery has been effected -- Affidavit of the complainant has also been filed recalling the earlier allegations – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Regular bail -- Custody and Covid-19 -- 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 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2020

Non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented -- Keeping in view that there is only a single date default, petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court within ten days from today and on his doing so he shall be released on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Default bail – Right of – Petitioner remaining behind bars for a period of less than two weeks till date cannot cry foul and ask for bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Proclaimed offender – Murder case – Regular bail – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Regular bail – POCSO matter – High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(SC) Decided on : 09.09.2022

Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Condition requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh), that too directly to the informant/complainant, is harsh and unacceptable -- Condition set aside -- Appellant must comply with other conditions specified in the impugned order for availing the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(SC) Decided on: 29.01.2019

Cheating – Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

NDPS case – Recovery of 206 grams of opium from co-accused – Disclosure that he sold 250 grams of opium to petitioner – Only on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner is sought to be roped in – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Theft in dwelling house – Disclosure statement -- Only on the basis of disclosure statement by some of the apprehended persons / accused, the petitioner has been roped in – No recovery has been made from the petitioner, he is not involved in any other case – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Concealment of filing earlier bail application -- Law is well settled that where a process is “ex debito justitiae” the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants – Petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented -- Keeping in view that there is only a single date default, petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court within ten days from today and on his doing so he shall be released on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Non-bailable warrants – Held, petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act which is a bailable offence -- Hence, there is no occasion for apprehension of arrest and detention in a bailable offence provided the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the conditions set forth by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for granting him the concession of bail – Petition withdrawn with liberty to move an application/petition for bail before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender/person – Petitioner met with an accident and suffered fracture in his leg and arm, due to which, he could not walk -- He requested his counsel for his exemption, but due to some reason, he could not move appropriate application before the trial court -- Petition disposed of with a direction that, in case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of one week, he shall be admitted on bail. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Cheque bounce case -- Warrant of arrest -- On account of an accident accused got fracture on his leg and could not appear -- Accused shall surrender before trial Court within fifteen days positively and on surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Petitioner ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount of Rs. 5 lacs – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2020

Anticipatory bail in FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Proclaimed person -- Subsequently, the petitioner had surrendered before the trial Court and, thereafter, he was released on bail by the trial Court in the main case – Petition allowed, petitioner granted concession of anticipatory bail

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2020

Cheque bounce case -- Absence of accused – Non-bailable warrant – Accused remained absent without any intimation to the trial Court that is why the trial Court forfeited his surety and issued non-bailable warrants -- Without finding any fault with the order of the trial Court and Sessions Court, looking to the peculiar facts that the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is involved and the case being u/s 138 NI Act, there is no point to put the petitioner in custody – Non-bailable warrant set-aside, petitioner is granted anticipatory bail on the bail bonds earlier furnished by him before the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender in cheque bounce case – Point for determination is whether the petitioner has been rightly declared proclaimed offender -- Otherwise also, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is bailable in nature -- Petitioner has already given an undertaking that he would submit to the process of law and would furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Direction given to the petitioner to appear before trial court and furnish bail bond has been complied with – Interim order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.04.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Suspension of sentence -- Accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year and compensation for amount of cheques in question – Accused preferred an appeal -- Suspension of sentence given, with a direction to accused-appellant to deposit 1/3rd of the compensation amount – Accused is aggrieved by such condition – Held, no merit in the revision petition, rather the same is not maintainable -- Appellate Court is justified in imposing any term or condition while suspending the sentence of the accused-appellant, rather the Appellate Court showed indulgence to the accused appellant by asking him to deposit 1/3rd of the compensation only, instead of the complete one -- No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which might have called for interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.07.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Suspension of sentence by Appellate Court – When notice in the appeal has already been issued, the Appellate Court should have normally passed the order for suspension of sentence as the prayer to that effect was not declined -- Direction issued to the Appellate Court to pass specific order on the prayer for suspension of sentence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2015

Parole for repair of house -- Panchayat resolution certifies petitioner’s residence and there is no threat of breach of law and order to the security of the village if he is released on parole – No specific reason given by SSP as to how petitioner's release on parole will have apprehension of breach of peace -- Petition allowed and direction given to the respondents to release the petitioner on six weeks' parole to repair his house.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Rejection of Parole – It is well settled that merely an apprehension that release of convict would result in disturbance of peace or danger to State security or the likelihood of the prisoner getting involved in more offences, if so, released on parole, is not, in itself, a ground to deny the benefit of parole – Petition allowed and the impugned order set aside – Petitioner ordered to be released on parole for four weeks.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Parole -- Temporary release – NDPS case -- Conviction of petitioner u/s 22 of NDPS Act for 10 years -- Petitioner involved in three other cases (NDPS), out of which he was acquitted in one case and in the remaining two cases, he was convicted and sentenced to the period already undergone and was ordered to pay fine which he has deposited – Likelihood of his involvement in similar offence while on parole is not be taken as an active and real apprehension of threat to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order -- Merely on apprehension, benefit of parole cannot be denied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.01.2020

Section 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 302 and 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Unlawful assembly -- Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner either on the person of the deceased or on the person of any of the injured -- Recovery of motor cycle has been shown from him -- Therefore, it would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether the petitioner could be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC – Petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2021 and the investigation already stands completed, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.06.2022

Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 365, 395, 397, 506, 412 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity case – Regular bail – Parity with co-accused -- Truck was looted, a mobile phone and Rs.7,000/- in cash were snatched from complainant – Complainant was taken to a place after blindfolding him and was later on released -- Co-accused suffered disclosure statement, wherein he named the present petitioner -- Custody since 20.09.2020, challan already stand presented -- Co-accused, who nominated the petitioner have already been granted concession of regular bail alongwith one more co-accused – Purely on the parity with co-accused, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Sections 25, 27 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 379, 382, 148, 149, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Proclamation order – Challenge to – Bail to petitioner – Right of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days -- On doing so, petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Sections 25, 27 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody for more than two months -- Trial is likely to take a long time to conclude -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non vital part -- Thus, it is a debatable question as to whether the said injury would entail the offence u/s 307 IPC, and the same can only be determined on the basis of evidence during trial -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Section 25, 54, 59 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 22, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Intoxicant tablets and powder were recovered from the car – Accused pleaded no knowledge about the presence of intoxicants in the car – Petitioner found to be innocent in the inquiry conducted by S.P. – He is involved in seven other case and on bail in all other cases -- Without meaning anything on merits of the case and in view of situation arising out of pandemic covid-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2020

Sections 25, 27, 29 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 94 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 57, 167, 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 341, 120-B, 148, 149 -- Murder case -- Anticipatory bail – Interim bail -- Juvenile-petitioner’s reliance upon birth certificate and matriculation certificate -- Without commenting anything as regards the genuineness of the documents, petition disposed of with the directions: (i) The petitioner to surrender before the Juvenile Justice Board within 10 days and upon the petitioner so surrendering, the Juvenile Justice Board shall release the petitioner on interim bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Board. (ii) The Board shall conduct an inquiry as regards the juvenility of the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to be juvenile, the Board shall consider his release under Section 12 of the Act and pass an appropriate order. (iii) The petitioner to be present before the Board on the day his bail application is to be heard and on the day when the order on his bail application is to be pronounced or on any other day as directed by Board. (iv) If the Board, upon inquiry regarding age comes to conclusion that the petitioner is not a juvenile, he shall be produced before Illaqa Magistrate who shall proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Board on all the dates unless specifically exempted. (v) The interim bail shall come to an end if petitioner is not found to be juvenile or in case his application is dismissed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2020

Section 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 202, 392, 396, 404, 412, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity with murder – Regular bail on parity with co-accused -- Petitioner has undergone more than 05 years of incarceration -- Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner – Case fixed for recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C -- Keeping in view the total custody period of the petitioner without meaning anything on the merits of the case and the situation arising out of pandemic COVID-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail at par with other co-accused who have already been granted regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Section 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dacoity case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was later on, nominated in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused – Petitioner has undergone the custody of 04 months and 15 days -- Considering the fact that challan stands presented; the petitioner is not involved in any other case; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Sections 25, 29, 54, 59 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 303, 212, 201, 387, 120-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner in prison for more than 1 year and 2 months -- Trial is yet to commence inasmuch as even the charges have not been framed and no less than 71 witnesses have been cited on behalf of the Prosecution Side -- Trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude in view of the on-going Covid-19 Pandemic -- Further detention of the Petitioner for an indefinite period is not justified -- As such, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Sections 25, 54, 59 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 302, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that petitioner is not involved in any other case and complainant has died prior to conducting his cross-examination and also in view of the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.08.2018, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Section 24, 25, 59 –Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 29 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188, 269 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, 307, 447, 506, 511, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302/120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

Section 25, 57 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

Section 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 379-A, 506 IPC -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 395, 397, 120-B, 365, 412, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dacoity case -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 336, 148, 149 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365, 392, 395, 506, 148, 149 IPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Dacoity case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was granted interim bail and joined the Investigation -- Complainant had also filed an affidavit that the petitioner was not involved – Petition allowed – Interim bail order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 25 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22, 25, 61, 85 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- State submitted that number of cases are pending against the petitioner – Held, recovery in the present case was only 50 grams of intoxicant powder (heroin), which is stated to be non-commercial -- Petitioner is in custody for the last one year – Petition for regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 25, 54, 59 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail – Names of the petitioner(s) does not find mentioned in the FIR and their names have been mentioned in supplement statement, it is a case of no injury and firing of two gun shots have not been attributed to the petitioner(s) – Interim bail granted with a direction to join the investigation -- Factual position not disputed, though petitioners have joined the investigation but the weapon has not been recovered -- Sufficient exceptional circumstances are made out to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners – Interim bail order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 25 -- Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3, 4 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 21, 25, 29 -- Parole to meet family members -- Petitioner has been sentenced to R.I. for 12 years u/s 18/21/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act -- Petitioner is not facing trial in any other case – Petitioner confined in jail over 5 years and 7 months and that there is nothing adverse on his conduct and behaviour in prison -- Petitioner be released on parole for 6 weeks.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.10.2020

Section 27 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Culpable homicide -- Right of private defence – Regular bail – In view of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and evidence against the petitioner, the fact that debatable question as to whether the petitioner legitimately exercised right of private defence or exceeded the same is involved and the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19, Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.10.2020

Sections 25, 27 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 427, 435, 148, 149 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Section 25, 54, 59 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 202, 392, 396, 404, 412, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity with murder -- Regular bail -- Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence -- Petitioner in custody since 17.07.2015 and has been inculpated on the statement of the co-accused -- Chilli powder recovered from the petitioner -- Truck, of which the deceased were driver and conductor, was recovered from other co-accused, as was the weapon of offence – No allegation that the petitioner is likely to abscond or influence witnesses -- Due to outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19 trial is not likely to be concluded in near future -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated any longer – Petition allowed, petitioner be released on bail pending trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Section 25, 27 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 336, 148, 149 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Section 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 307, 452, 188, 34 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201, 411, 115 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that he was handed over the weapon after the incident was over and that too by the main accused while the petitioner was in his own house -- Co-accused, from whom the motorcycle, on which the main accused was riding, was purchased has been granted bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2020

Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 980 loose intoxicant tablets containing salt of Alprazolam – 5 grams above the commercial quantity – Keeping in view order granting concession of bail to the co-accused and the fact that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395, 397, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity – Regular bail -- No other evidence against the petitioner as on date except the statement of the co-accused which cannot be read against him -- Similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail – Petition allowed, petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2020

Section 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34, 452, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Lalkara alleged -- Regular bail – Petitioner is attributed only a 'lalkara', he is in custody for over 09 months, the complainant and 02 eye witnesses have been examined, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2020

Section 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 307, 341 & 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner, however police had not recovered even any empties/fire bullet from the spot -- In this incident no injury is caused to the complainant by any fire arm – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 307, 379-B, 427, 436, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No material except the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 23.02.2020, challan having been presented but charges yet to be framed – Bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Section 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 34 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Allegation of Murder – Regular bail to Juvenile – Right of – Intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence -- Held, a juvenile can be denied the concession of bail, if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of the Act is available -- Court below has not satisfied the requirement of provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act and without having any material on record, the bail application of the petitioner has been declined -- Accordingly, petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Sections 25, 54 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 336, 353, 186, 212, 216-A, 148/149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No injury is attributed to the petitioner, he is 24 years of age, is in custody for over 01 year -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Breach of the bail condition – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Anticipatory bail -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance in Trial – On account of an accident accused got fracture on his leg and could not appear -- Resultantly, his presence was ordered to be secured through warrant of arrest – Accused shall surrender before trial Court within fifteen days positively and on surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail -- Trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 446 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in accordance with law -- Meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to warrant of arrest already issued against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner -- General and oblivious allegations of causing injuries -- Even the injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body and the weapons claimed to have been used are blunt weapons – Petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2022 – No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner – Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.06.2022

Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is attributed a 'lalkara' only although the other co-accused are alleged to have caused injuries – Interim bail given, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and even challan has been presented to Court – Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Regular bail -- Injury attracting the mischief of Section 307 IPC has not been attributed to either of the petitioners – Fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19 -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody for more than two months -- Trial is likely to take a long time to conclude -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non vital part -- Thus, it is a debatable question as to whether the said injury would entail the offence u/s 307 IPC, and the same can only be determined on the basis of evidence during trial -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Proclaimed offender -- Regular bail -- 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 -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

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 -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2020

Anticipatory bail -- Role attributed to the petitioner was datar blow on the left thumb of the victim -- Interim protection was granted to the petitioner and joined investigation and has co-operated with the investigation process and the recovery has already been made – He is no longer required for custodial investigation -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Anticipatory bail – Names of the petitioner(s) does not find mentioned in the FIR and their names have been mentioned in supplement statement, it is a case of no injury and firing of two gun shots have not been attributed to the petitioner(s) – Interim bail granted with a direction to join the investigation -- Factual position not disputed, though petitioners have joined the investigation but the weapon has not been recovered -- Sufficient exceptional circumstances are made out to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners – Interim bail order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

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 baseball 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Regular bail -- Petitioner suffered three injuries including two fractures on the fingers of his left hand – Though in the said case, the police had filed a cancellation report, yet the fact remains that in the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the proceedings are pending before the SDJM – Petitioner is attributed a sword blow on the abdomen of Taya of the complainant -- Whether or not the petitioner is an aggressor, is yet to be determined -- Petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2019 -- Challan has already been presented and the charges have also been framed -- Regular bail granted to petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.06.2020

Regular bail -- Once the co-accused have already been acquitted and the petitioner is not alleged to have played any active role, it would not be appropriate to further incarcerate the petitioner -- Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2019 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient time, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Cheating by way of registered sale deed – Anticipatory bail -- Complainant alleged to be cheated by her niece and her niece’s husband in relation to certain immovable property, fraudulently transferred by way of a registered sale deed -- Petitioner was one of the attesting witnesses to the said document -- This being the limited role attributed to him, Court opined that it would suffice if he joins investigation at this stage and co-operates with the police -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Regular bail – Suspension of sentence – There is a difference between grant of bail u/s 439 of the CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence u/s 389 of the CrPC and grant of bail, post-conviction -- In the earlier case there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception -- In case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Cancellation of bail -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Petitioner is originally a resident of U.P., and presently was residing with his father in New Delhi, which falls in a different State from where the trial is taking place, i.e. Gurugram in Haryana – JJ Board declined bail by saying the petitioner may have to face revulsion and outrage from members of the society on surmises and conjectures -- Ld. ASJ upheld the decision by saying release would associate him with known criminals and it would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, whereas JJ Board never speculated upon such possibility – Held, petitioner who is a juvenile and has already remained in detention for a period of one year, one month and twenty days by now, should be released on bail – Revision allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2020

Murder case -- Anticipatory bail – Interim bail -- Juvenile-petitioner’s reliance upon birth certificate and matriculation certificate -- Without commenting anything as regards the genuineness of the documents, petition disposed of with the directions: (i) The petitioner to surrender before the Juvenile Justice Board within 10 days and upon the petitioner so surrendering, the Juvenile Justice Board shall release the petitioner on interim bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Board. (ii) The Board shall conduct an inquiry as regards the juvenility of the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to be juvenile, the Board shall consider his release under Section 12 of the Act and pass an appropriate order. (iii) The petitioner to be present before the Board on the day his bail application is to be heard and on the day when the order on his bail application is to be pronounced or on any other day as directed by Board. (iv) If the Board, upon inquiry regarding age comes to conclusion that the petitioner is not a juvenile, he shall be produced before Illaqa Magistrate who shall proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Board on all the dates unless specifically exempted. (v) The interim bail shall come to an end if petitioner is not found to be juvenile or in case his application is dismissed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2020

Rape with minor cousin sister – Prosecutrix was residing in house of petitioner being brought up by his mother -- Prosecutrix entire statement recorded – Petitioner was aged about 15 years when the FIR was lodged still continues to be a juvenile -- By now, he has already remained in Safe Custody for more than one year and one and a half months – His further detention there would not appear to be in his overall interest due to the fact that there are likely to be more juveniles in conflict with law, housed in the same premises -- Prosecutrix has already been shifted from the parental house of the petitioner -- No reason to deny petitioner the opportunity of coming back to the custody of his parents -- Petitioner directed to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2020

Maintainability of Regular bail – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2020

Maintainability of Anticipatory bail by minor/ juvenile – Could not be the intention of the legislature that such juvenile should be first apprehended and then produce before Juvenile Justice Board -- Petition is found to be maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2020

Duty of Juvenile Justice Board -- Manifest in no uncertain terms the duty cast upon the Juvenile Justice Board to implement the letter of the law in true spirit, keeping in mind the ultimate interests of the child -- Section 12 of the Act of 2015 makes it clear that grant of bail to the child in conflict with the law should be the norm and the proviso thereto requires denial of such bail only if release of the child is likely to bring him or her into association with known criminals or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

NDPS matter – Regular bail -- Petitioner was a minor on the date of the alleged offence though have been treated as a major -- Petitioner and the other co-accused were apprehended in possession of 850 tablets of Clovidol-100, however, no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner -- Continued incarceration of the petitioner is neither required nor desirable – Petitioner shall be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.07.2020

Allegation of Murder – Intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence -- Court below has not satisfied the requirement of provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act and without having any material on record, the bail application of the petitioner has been declined -- Accordingly, petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Unnatural offence – Policy and provision of the Juvenile Justice Act is in favour of grant of bail to the juvenile -- Since the circumstances or the grounds justifying denial of the bail are not discernible in the case, therefore, the petitioner deserve to be allowed concession of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2020

Child in conflict with law – Grant of bail to a juvenile is the rule – Under Section (i) of the JJ Act, a presumption of innocence of any malafide or criminal intent arises in favour of the juvenile – Petitioner has spent more than 07 months in incarceration – Detention of the petitioner would mar his future education and prospects in life -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail, grandfather of the petitioner shall regularly monitor the movement of the petitioner and ensure that the petitioner does not come in association with any known-criminals and does not indulge in any other offence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2020

Right of bail -- Juvenile is entitled to bail as a matter of right unless the case falls in the exceptions carved out in the provision itself but nothing was available on record to show that any of the three exceptions specified under Section 12(1) of the J.J. Act was existing -- Both the Courts below have not satisfied the requirement of provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act and without having any material on record, the bail application of the petitioner has been declined -- Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Right of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days -- On doing so, petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Regular bail -- Petitioner was named in the disclosure statement and recovery of Rs.15,000/- was made from him -- No case pending against the petitioner -- Charges framed but no witnesses have been examined -- General rule is bail and not jail, investigation is complete, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner granted bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Anticipatory bail to juvenile – Interim bail to juvenile -- Murder case – Without commenting anything as regards the genuineness of the documents, petition disposed of with the directions: (i) The petitioner to surrender before the Juvenile Justice Board within 10 days and upon the petitioner so surrendering, the Juvenile Justice Board shall release the petitioner on interim bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Board. (ii) The Board shall conduct an inquiry as regards the juvenility of the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to be juvenile, the Board shall consider his release under Section 12 of the Act and pass an appropriate order. (iii) The petitioner to be present before the Board on the day his bail application is to be heard and on the day when the order on his bail application is to be pronounced or on any other day as directed by Board. (iv) If the Board, upon inquiry regarding age comes to conclusion that the petitioner is not a juvenile, he shall be produced before Illaqa Magistrate who shall proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Board on all the dates unless specifically exempted. (v) The interim bail shall come to an end if petitioner is not found to be juvenile or in case his application is dismissed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2020

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 -- Direction given 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2020

Regular bail -- Disclosure statement -- 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 – Petitioners are not even stated to be involved in any other case -- Petitioners ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2020

Personal hearing before cancellation of bail -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Agreement to sell – Main dispute between the parties is regarding breach of an agreement to sell and it is based on documentary evidence -- Dispute is purely of civil nature – Court found no ground to cancel the bail -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.12.2020

Opportunity of hearing – When the order was passed by the High Court, the appellants were not present either in person or through counsel – Order passed by the High Court set aside, matter remitted before the High Court to pass a fresh order after hearing the appellants on the application for cancellation of bail, in the interest of justice.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused after grant of bail – Rule of natural justice -- Address mentioned in the Court notice, being an incorrect description thereof, petitioner/accused did not come to be validly served on his correct address, hence the learned trial Magistrate concerned, could not conclude that any valid service, became caused upon him, nor could he conclude, that there was any willful, and, deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner, to cause his personal appearance -- Contrarily, it became incumbent upon the learned Magistrate, to after discovering the correct address, cause there his valid service however, did not recourse, the above measure -- Impugned order quashed, and, set aside -- Petitioner directed to cause his personal appearance before the learned Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Personal hearing -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Conviction in Cheque bounce case – Non-compliance of 20% deposit of compensation – Instead of depositing, the petitioner chose to file review and the same was dismissed, statutory period of 90 days for compliance elapsed -- Consequently, petitioner’s bail was cancelled and his bail bonds were forfeited to the State -- After a period of about more than 2 ½ years, the petitioner approached High Court for setting aside the impugned orders – Held, conduct of the petitioner itself shows that he is adopting dilatory tactics in order to evade and avoid the payment of compensation -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.11.2021

Ground of Cancellation of bail – When a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with the evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulge in similar activity, which would hamper smooth investigation of trial, is a ground for cancellation of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.12.2020

Bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.c. could have been cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. -- Appellants to file regular bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. afresh, which may be considered on merits and be decided expeditiously.

(SC) Decided on: 20.11.2020

Bail on incomplete facts -- 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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Interim bail on medical ground by High Court – Rape case -- No satisfaction recorded by the High Court that treatment offered to respondent/accused was not adequate and he requires any further treatment by any particular medical institute for which it is necessary to release the respondent on interim bail on medical grounds -- Even as on date, due medical care is being taken of the respondent/accused -- High Court, without considering the entire materials on record, has passed the impugned order, which is unsustainable – Appeal allowed, order granting interim bail set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Statutory/ Default bail – Challan filed before submitting bail bonds – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2020

Personal earing -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused – Non-bailable warrant -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Dowry death case -- Death took place within 7 or 8 months and there is oral evidence of the parents of cruelty and torture immediately preceding the death -- Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail -- Appellant spent money beyond his financial capacity, at the wedding of the victim and had even gifted an I-10 car -- Failure to lodge an FIR complaining of dowry and harassment before the death of the victim is inconsequential -- Parents and other family members of the victim obviously would not want to precipitate a complete breakdown of the marriage by lodging an FIR against the Respondent No.2 and his parents, while the victim was alive. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender for being taken into custody -- The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Statutory/ Default bail – Cancellation of -- 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 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2020

NDPS case -- Default bail – Petitioner ought to be granted bail in any case since he has already remained in detention for more than 8½ months and there is no involvement in any other case under the NDPS Act, and on account of on-going Covid-19 Pandemic, the trial which could not commence is likely to take a considerable time in its completion -- Validity of Division Bench's decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121) cannot at this stage be said to be altogether beyond controversy, since the matter has now been referred for consideration afresh in view of the decision in Julfkar's case (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15385) which has subsequently been followed in the case of Rinku vs. State of Haryana (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15615) -- Criminal Revision allowed at this stage and the Petitioner is permitted to be conditionally released on bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court concerned. In case of any different result coming forth from that in the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of the order, if warranted at that stage.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 610 capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

NDPS case – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2020

NDPS Matter – Default bail – Right of -- It is essential that the report of the Chemical Examiner be included in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and without which it can at best be termed to be an incomplete challan -- If it is not submitted within the requisite period of 180 days, it would essentially result in a default benefit to the accused unless an application is moved by the Investigating Agency apprising the Court of status of investigation with a prayer for extension of time to the satisfaction of the Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.11.2018

Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Agreement to sell – Civil suit pending – Regular bail – Primary allegations against the petitioner are that he along with 3 co-accused have prepared an agreement to sell vide which the complainant has allegedly agreed to sell the property in favour of the petitioner –Considering the fact that prior to registration of the present FIR, the matter was already subjudice before the Civil Court, the petition allowed -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.12.2020

Anticipatory bail -- Case of civil nature as dispute between the parties relate to the non sharing of the profit or loss of the partnership firm concretized between them -- Considering the civil clippings of the disputes, without dilating further on merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Criminal breach of trust -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Regular bail -- Offences registered against the petitioner are triable by the Judicial Magistrate -- Law is more liberal with regard to grant of bail to a woman -- Challan has been presented in the Court but conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2020

Agreement to sell -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was shown as one of the witness therein -- This being the limited role attributed to him, it would suffice if the petitioner cooperates with the police -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to forthwith join investigation and in event of his arrest shall be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Trial not commenced – Regular bail – Appellant, who is admittedly 62 years of age has already spent nearly a year in judicial custody -- A period of nine months has passed from the date of filing of the charge sheet -- Charges have not been framed and the trial has not commenced as yet -- Though much is said about the tempering of witnesses, it is seen from the material on record that the prosecution rests mainly on documents -- Appellant held entitled to bail.

(SC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Anticipatory bail -- Condition requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh), that too directly to the informant/complainant, is harsh and unacceptable -- Condition set aside -- Appellant must comply with other conditions specified in the impugned order for availing the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(SC) Decided on: 29.01.2019

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Anticipatory bail -- Dispute regarding agreement to sell and receiving of Rs.10 lacs -- Petitioner No.1 is ready to deposit the said amount in the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, subject to final outcome of the case, to show his bona fide -- Admitted case of the complainant that they had business transactions with the petitioners and have already filed suit for recovery – Held, entire case is based upon the documentary evidence for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required -- Petitioners are directed to be released on interim bail -- Two month time granted to deposit the amount of Rs.10 lacs before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate without prejudice to their right of defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2020

Attesting witness – Anticipatory bail -- Complainant alleged to be cheated by her niece and her niece’s husband in relation to certain immovable property, fraudulently transferred by way of a registered sale deed -- Petitioner was one of the attesting witnesses to the said document -- This being the limited role attributed to him, Court opined that it would suffice if he joins investigation at this stage and co-operates with the police -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Proclaimed offender/person – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner met with an accident and suffered fracture in his leg and arm, due to which, he could not walk -- He requested his counsel for his exemption, but due to some reason, he could not move appropriate application before the trial court -- Petition disposed of with a direction that, in case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of one week, he shall be admitted on bail. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Non-appearance in Trial – Arrest warrant -- Anticipatory bail -- On account of an accident accused got fracture on his leg and could not appear -- Resultantly, his presence was ordered to be secured through warrant of arrest – Accused shall surrender before trial Court within fifteen days positively and on surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail -- Trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 446 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in accordance with law -- Meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to warrant of arrest already issued against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

Proclaimed person – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount of Rs. 5 lacs – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2020

Maintainability of Regular bail – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2020

Duty of Juvenile Justice Board -- Right of Bail – Manifest in no uncertain terms the duty cast upon the Juvenile Justice Board to implement the letter of the law in true spirit, keeping in mind the ultimate interests of the child -- Section 12 of the Act of 2015 makes it clear that grant of bail to the child in conflict with the law should be the norm and the proviso thereto requires denial of such bail only if release of the child is likely to bring him or her into association with known criminals or expose him/her to moral, physical or psychological danger or defeat the ends of justice.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Regular bail – Right of -- Petitioner is less than 16 years of age on the date of occurrence – Grant of bail to a juvenile is the rule – Under section 3(i) of the JJ Act, a presumption of innocence of any malafide or criminal intent arises in favour of the juvenile – Petitioner has spent more than 07 months in incarceration – Detention of the petitioner would mar his future education and prospects in life -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2020

Agreement to sell – Anticipatory bail by Ld. Addl. Session Judge -- Cancellation of -- Main dispute between the parties is regarding breach of an agreement to sell and it is based on documentary evidence -- Court found no ground to cancel the bail -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.12.2020

Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Dispute has arisen relating to the payment of the amount so invested and non-sharing of the profits -- Considering the civil clippings of the disputes, without dilating further on merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell – Criminal breach of trust – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

Cheating by agreement to sell – Regular bail – Primary allegations against the petitioner are that he along with 3 co-accused have prepared an agreement to sell vide which the complainant has allegedly agreed to sell the property in favour of the petitioner –Considering the fact that prior to registration of the present FIR, the matter was already subjudice before the Civil Court, the petition allowed -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.12.2020

Parity with co-accused -- Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone more than 05 years of incarceration -- Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner – Case fixed for recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C -- Keeping in view the total custody period of the petitioner without meaning anything on the merits of the case and the situation arising out of pandemic COVID-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail at par with other co-accused who have already been granted regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Parity with co-accused -- Another co-accused was granted bail – State has failed to draw the attention of the Court to any distinguishing features except that the petitioner is involved in 7 more cases, out of which 3 are under NDPS Act, 1985 – Held, present case is required to be decided on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution -- A coordinate Bench has already considered the aforesaid facts, while granting the concession of bail -- Petitioner also ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Parity with co-accused -- Unnatural offence – Same benefit cannot be declined to the petitioner unless and until certain differentiating facts are brought to the notice between the petitioner and the said co-accused -- As no differentiating fact has been brought to the notice, therefore the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Parity with co-accused -- Unnatural offence – Same benefit cannot be declined to the petitioner unless and until certain differentiating facts are brought to the notice between the petitioner and the said co-accused -- As no differentiating fact has been brought to the notice, therefore the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Rejection of Parole – Petitioner should have been treated at par with co-accused, who has been released on parole for the same purpose – Direction given to re-consider the case of the petitioner for releasing him on parole, at par with his co-accused within a period of one week.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 392, 397, 34 – Robbery – Regular bail -- Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case, but while noticing that the petitioner behind bars since the last about 7 months and otherwise has a clean record and that none of the cited 9 PWs has been examined till date, further detention of the petitioner would not be justified – Petition accepted, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail – Parity -- High Court proceeded to grant bail to the respondent No. 2 only for the reason that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail -- Order granting bail to the co-accused met with its strong disapproval by Supreme Court – High Court granted bail to the co-accused while ignoring the relevant considerations and with a mere reference to the mandate of Article 21 -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Regular bail – Custody period – Relevancy of -- Gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest -- Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves, do not make out a case for grant of bail – Respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or improbable – Bail by High Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 342, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(4)(w)(i) – POCSO matter – Regular bail – Ad-interim compensation as a ground -- High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(SC) Decided on : 09.09.2022

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B – Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 18(b), 25, 29, 60, 61, 85 -- NDPS case -- 5.83 Kgs of opium recovered – Death of younger brother -- Interim bail -- Younger brother of the petitioner passed away and his rasam pagri/bhog is scheduled for 24.06.2022 -- Petition disposed of, Superintendent, District Jail directed to ensure that the petitioner is taken in custody to the venue of Rasam Pagri/Bhog on 24.06.2022 by 10:00 AM and shall ensure that he is brought back to the jail premises by or before 5:00 PM on the same day itself.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.06.2022

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452, 506 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner -- General and oblivious allegations of causing injuries to the complainant – Even the injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body and the weapons claimed to have been used in the occurrence are blunt weapons – Further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2022 – No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and her continued incarceration in judicial custody is not likely to advance any interest of justice – Petition allowed and the petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.06.2022

Section 439 -- Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 78, 14 – Excise matter – Regular bail -- FIR on secret information -- Total 120 bottles of liquor were recovered from the WagonR belonging to petitioner KS and 480 bottles of 750 ml each were recovered from the car belonging to the petitioner S@G -- Liquor, purchased by the petitioners from Chandigarh for onward sale in Ludhiana – Petitioners are in custody since 01.05.2022 and investigation is already complete and maximum prescribed sentence is three years -- Taking into consideration the facts noticed, the role attributed, the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of the case as well as the period of custody already undergone by the petitioners, Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petitions -- Petitioners admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.06.2022

Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Recovery of 206 grams of opium from co-accused – Disclosure that he sold 250 grams of opium to petitioner – Only on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner is sought to be roped in – Petitioner was earlier an accused in an offence under the IPC, but he stands acquitted in that case – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 380, 457 – Theft in dwelling house – Anticipatory bail -- Lock of inner door of house was broken and theft of LCD, Gas Cylinder, stove, gold ornaments, utensils and cash occurred – Only on the basis of disclosure statement by some of the apprehended persons / accused, the petitioner has been roped in – No recovery has been made from the petitioner, he is not involved in any other case – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 302 and 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Murder case – Unlawful assembly -- Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner either on the person of the deceased or on the person of any of the injured -- Recovery of motor cycle has been shown from him -- Therefore, it would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether the petitioner could be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC – Petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2021 and the investigation already stands completed, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.06.2022

Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Concealment of filing earlier bail application -- Law is well settled that where a process is “ex debito justitiae” the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 342, 365, 395, 397, 506, 412 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Dacoity case – Regular bail – Parity with co-accused -- Truck was looted, a mobile phone and Rs.7,000/- in cash were snatched from complainant – Complainant was taken to a place after blindfolding him and was later on released -- Co-accused suffered disclosure statement, wherein he named the present petitioner -- Custody since 20.09.2020, challan already stand presented -- Co-accused, who nominated the petitioner have already been granted concession of regular bail alongwith one more co-accused – Purely on the parity with co-accused, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 61, 85 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1 kg of opium – Petitioner behind bars since 16.04.2022 – Petitioner is facing another FIR, though not under NDPS Act – Keeping in view the fact that challan has not yet been presented and the trial is going to take long time, the petitioner held entitled for concession of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 384, 365, 506, 34 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Occurrence is of 16.08.2017 and the postmortem conducted on 05.09.2017 – As per the medical evidence “the death could have occurred 5 to 6 weeks prior to the postmortem examination” – As per the statement of PW-8, no cause of death could be ascertained in the case – Petitioner is behind the bars since 03.09.2017 and there is no other case pending against him -- Case is based on circumstantial evidence – Even on 25.08.2020 when the co-accused granted regular bail, it was contended that out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, 19 have already been examined – Regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2022

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 376-D, 506 – Gang rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner is approximately 18 years whereas the age of prosecutrix is 28 years, who is also the paternal aunt of the petitioner – Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2021 and is in custody since then – Main witness has already been examined whereas nine other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and the petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2021, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.06.2022

Section 438, 446A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 120-B, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented and even his bail bonds have not been cancelled or forfeited to the State -- Keeping in view that there is only a single date default, petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court within ten days from today and on his doing so he shall be released on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 450, 452, 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Complicity of the petitioner in the offence would remain subject matter of debate before the Trial Court and the petitioner, who is in custody for the last more than 10 months would be entitled to be released on bail as 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Without delving into the merits or demerits, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Section 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-bailable warrants – Bailable case – Need of anticipatory bail – Held, petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act which is a bailable offence -- Hence, there is no occasion for apprehension of arrest and detention in a bailable offence provided the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the conditions set forth by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for granting him the concession of bail – Petition withdrawn with liberty to move an application/petition for bail before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Section 446A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Section 82, 438 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender/person – Anticipatory bail -- Complaint u/s 138 of the N.I.Act, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender -- Petitioner met with an accident and suffered fracture in his leg and arm, due to which, he could not walk -- He requested his counsel for his exemption, but due to some reason, he could not move appropriate application before the trial court -- Petition disposed of with a direction that, in case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of one week, he shall be admitted on bail. Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.02.2021

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B -- Cheating by agreement to sell – Civil suit pending – Regular bail – Primary allegations against the petitioner are that he along with 3 co-accused have prepared an agreement to sell vide which the complainant has allegedly agreed to sell the property in favour of the petitioner – Said agreement to sell is already subject matter of civil suit – Considering the fact that prior to registration of the present FIR, the matter was already subjudice before the Civil Court, the petition allowed -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.12.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 – Snatching of mobile phone – Regular bail – Submission that it remained unexplained as to from which sources, the complainant came to know about the names of the persons, who had allegedly snatched his mobile phone – Petitioners remained behind bars for about 3 months – Challan already stands presented – Interim directions pertaining to grant of interim bail made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.12.2020

Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Recovery of poppy husk is non-commercial quantity -- No recovery effected from the petitioner and he is being arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused – Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act –Anticipatory bail granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.12.2020

Section 438 -- Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61/1/14 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 473 IPC – Excise matter – Anticipatory bail -- 45 boxes of country made liquor were recovered from a car and co-accused was arrested at the spot -- Petitioner is not the owner of the car – Other co-accused was arrested later and stated that he was to hand over liquor to the petitioner – On direction petitioner joined investigation, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.12.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case – Interim bail -- FSL report in the case has not been received so far -- Petitioner deserves the concession of interim regular bail till receipt of FSL report -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on interim regular bail till receipt of FSL report -- On receipt of FSL report, the petitioner shall apply for regular bail before the trial Court. Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.12.2020

Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 379, 382, 148, 149, 201 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Proclamation order – Challenge to – Bail to petitioner – Right of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days -- On doing so, petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 458, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 (Sections 325/326 IPC added later on) – Attempt to murder – Lalkara -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is attributed a 'lalkara' only although the other co-accused are alleged to have caused injuries – Interim bail given, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and even challan has been presented to Court – Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 120-B, 34 – Murder case – Regular bail – Petitioner in judicial custody since November, 2018 -- Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the co-accused of the petitioner is on bail -- Out of total fifteen prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far -- Trial is likely to consume considerable time to conclude in the wake of outbreak of pandemic-COVID-19 – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment to suicide – Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Allegation that deceased committed suicide on receiving threats by petitioner -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.01.2020; he is not involved in any other case; the trial is not proceeding due to Covid-19 situation and also in view of the fact that matter stands compromised between the complainant and petitioner, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.12.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18/61, 37 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Petitioner was carrying a black bag on his shoulder – Petitioner and co-accused arrested carrying 3 kilograms each of Opium – Petitioner cannot be denied bail merely on the ground that he belong to Bihar -- Moreover by offering the surety amount to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-, the apprehension of the petitioner absconding is met to an extent – Petitioner is behind bars for more than 1 ½ years -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Story put forth by the prosecution gives an arguable issue to the petitioner -- Nothing on record to show that the concession of bail is likely to be misutilised -- Petitioner granted bail subject to furnishing surety/sureties to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.12.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 323, 307, 325, 341, 506 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has given a Jaily blow on the leg of victim, which is declared to be a simple injury and the injury, invoking Section 307 IPC, is attributed to co-accused, who was having an axe -- Petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail and direction given to join the investigation -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required for further investigation in the case – Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Injury attracting the mischief of Section 307 IPC has not been attributed to either of the petitioners – Fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19 -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 34, 365, 506 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail – As many as 13 injuries were found on the person of the injured -- However, all the said injuries are virtually on non-vital parts inasmuch as the receipt of the said injuries are either on shoulders, arms, legs, knees or hands -- Even the three injuries classified as ‘grievous’ injuries are on non-vital parts -- Nothing to suggest that any of the injuries had been caused by running over the car on the injured -- Petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 6 months and 5 months respectively and challan already stands presented -- Petitioners ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody for more than two months -- Trial is likely to take a long time to conclude -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non vital part -- Thus, it is a debatable question as to whether the said injury would entail the offence u/s 307 IPC, and the same can only be determined on the basis of evidence during trial -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Section 439 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B – Rape case -- Run-away marriage with minor -- Victim had left the house of her own and gone to Bihar with co-accused, where they had performed the marriage -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that she had allured the victim, who is a minor girl -- Petitioner, who is having a minor child, has been in custody since 14.08.2020 -- No witness has been examined so far -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Section 438, 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 420 -- Agreement to sell – Civil nature dispute – Anticipatory bail by Ld. Addl. Session Judge -- Cancellation of -- Main dispute between the parties is regarding breach of an agreement to sell and it is based on documentary evidence -- Dispute is purely of civil nature – Allegations and counter-allegations levelled by both the parties against each other can only be proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence -- Court found no ground to cancel the bail -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.12.2020

Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail – Ground of -- When a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with the evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulge in similar activity, which would hamper smooth investigation of trial, is a ground for cancellation of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.12.2020

Section 82, 482 – Bail -- Proclamation at incomplete address – Effect of -- Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has been served, the proclamation proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not likely to be sustained because of his incomplete address on the proclamation notice – Order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender set aside -- In case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of one week, he shall be admitted on interim bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to its satisfaction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.12.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Kidnapping – Regular bail -- Victim 17 year old taken away on the pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix has exonerated the petitioner in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- She has refused to get herself medically examined -- Challan has been presented -- Charges have also been framed, but no prosecution witness has been examined 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.12.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder case – Regular bail – It will be debatable as to whether it is a case of suicide or murder – In any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 1 year and happens to be a cousin of husband of the deceased and maintaining a separate house and mess, though in adjacent premises, and is not stated to be involved in any other case, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21, 22, 61, 85 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Intoxicant tablets and powder were recovered from the car – Accused pleaded no knowledge about the presence of intoxicants in the car – Petitioner found to be innocent in the inquiry conducted by S.P. – He is involved in seven other case and on bail in all other cases -- Without meaning anything on merits of the case and in view of situation arising out of pandemic covid-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2020

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Petitioner was apprehended with 21 intoxicant bottles of ONEREX weighing 100 ML each and 21 strips of CARISOPRODOL -- Petitioner in custody for the last 02 years and 11 days – Out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only 05 PWs have been examined -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Anticipatory bail – Recovery of dowry article – Requirement of -- Bail opposed by complainant on the ground that recovery of the dowry articles is yet to be effected -- Submission is totally misplaced and misconceived, case pertains to the offence u/s 498-A IPC and is not u/s 406 IPC where the entrustment of articles is mandatorily required to be made to the person, by whom, it is misappropriated – Petitioner has joined the Investigation, no more required for further Investigation -- Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.12.2020

Section 438, 482 -- Proclaimed offender – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Anticipatory bail – Right of -- When an accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender, a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., impugning that order is not maintainable and accused should first move the Court which declared him a proclaimed offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised in the first instance before the Court which issued the proclamation and that power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is not to be exercised in favour of a person, who is absconding or avoiding service -- If an accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, he should not be granted anticipatory bail -- Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to surrender before the trial Court and move application seeking regular bail. Mehnga Singh’s case 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 501 and Pradeep Sharma’s case 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 269 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.12.2020

Section 57, 167, 438 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 94 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 341, 120-B, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 29 – Murder case -- Anticipatory bail – Interim bail -- Juvenile-petitioner’s reliance upon birth certificate and matriculation certificate -- Without commenting anything as regards the genuineness of the documents, petition disposed of with the directions: (i) The petitioner to surrender before the Juvenile Justice Board within 10 days and upon the petitioner so surrendering, the Juvenile Justice Board shall release the petitioner on interim bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Board. (ii) The Board shall conduct an inquiry as regards the juvenility of the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to be juvenile, the Board shall consider his release under Section 12 of the Act and pass an appropriate order. (iii) The petitioner to be present before the Board on the day his bail application is to be heard and on the day when the order on his bail application is to be pronounced or on any other day as directed by Board. (iv) If the Board, upon inquiry regarding age comes to conclusion that the petitioner is not a juvenile, he shall be produced before Illaqa Magistrate who shall proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Board on all the dates unless specifically exempted. (v) The interim bail shall come to an end if petitioner is not found to be juvenile or in case his application is dismissed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2020

Section 438 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15/61, 27-A – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Contention that the petitioner neither named in the FIR nor any recovery effected from him -- He has been arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused from whom 4.7 kgs of poppy husk has been recovered which is below the threshold of 50 kgs of commercial quantity -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in view of the submissions, Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.11.2020

Section 438 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 10 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 354-B, 452, 506, 34 IPC – Disrobe the woman/minor – POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail – There is dispute between two families resulting in registration of two FIR's, taking the allegations in the FIR on its prima facie value, the serious allegations are only against accused S and R, interim bail granted -- Petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and joined the investigation and he is no more required for further investigation -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.11.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354-D, 506 – Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67(A) – Stalking – Regular bail – Petitioner sent obscene messages to complainant – FIR registered after six months of occurrence -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is in judicial custody for the last about five months and also in view of the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.11.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341, 506, 427, 34 IPC – Grievous hurt -- Anticipatory bail -- Offence u/s 307 IPC deleted and in its place, offence u/s 326 IPC added -- Main accused were arrested and lateron, released on regular bail by the Court -- Petitioner was unarmed, only fist blows are attributed to him and he also damaged the motorcycle of the complainant – Interim bail granted to join the Investigaiton – Petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of IO and he is no more required in further investigation of the case -- Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 427, 34 -- Grievous hurt – Anticipatory bail -- Offence u/s 307 IPC deleted and offence u/s 326 IPC added -- No grievous injury attributed to the petitioner – On interim direction, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer and she is no more required in further investigation of the case – Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 353, 186, 324, 326, 332, 333 – Grievous hurt – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was arrested and then released on regular bail -- Subsequently, offences under Section 326, 333 IPC had been added -- It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner has misused the concession of regular bail in any way -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required -- Petition accepted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Dowry death case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone 1 year, 4 months and 12 days of custody and there is no other case pending against her – Medical evidence on record is in favour of the prosecution -- Death appears to have been caused by throttling which implies use of external force -- Moreover, prima facie, harassment on account of dowry has been established -- Death has taken place within one year and five months of marriage – Not a case of false implication -- It is not a case of inordinate delay -- Petition has no merit and dismissed at this stage.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 202, 392, 396, 404, 412, 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Dacoity with murder – Regular bail on parity with co-accused -- Petitioner has undergone more than 05 years of incarceration -- Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner – Case fixed for recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C -- Keeping in view the total custody period of the petitioner without meaning anything on the merits of the case and the situation arising out of pandemic COVID-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail at par with other co-accused who have already been granted regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 202, 392, 396, 404, 412, 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Dacoity with murder – Regular bail on parity with co-accused -- Petitioner has undergone more than 05 years of incarceration -- Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner – Case fixed for recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C -- Keeping in view the total custody period of the petitioner without meaning anything on the merits of the case and the situation arising out of pandemic COVID-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail at par with other co-accused who have already been granted regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Dacoity case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was later on, nominated in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused – Petitioner has undergone the custody of 04 months and 15 days -- Considering the fact that challan stands presented; the petitioner is not involved in any other case; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Sections 167(2), 439(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 28, 29 – NDPS case -- Default bail -- Cancellation of -- Bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.c. could have been cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. -- Appellants to file regular bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. afresh, which may be considered on merits and be decided expeditiously.

(SC) Decided on: 20.11.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 120-B – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Civil nature dispute -- Non-sharing of profits – Case of civil nature as dispute between the parties relate to the non sharing of the profit or loss of the partnership firm concretized between them -- Dispute has arisen relating to the payment of the amount so invested and non-sharing of the profits -- Considering the civil clippings of the disputes, without dilating further on merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 29 – Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- No recovery from the petitioner has only been roped in on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused from whom the actual recovery was done has already been extended the benefit of regular bail -- Statement of co-accused implicating the petitioner is yet to be proved -- Call details between the petitioner and the son of the co-accused, who is confined in jail, is also yet to be proved -- Keeping in view the above, the petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no further interrogation is required at this stage – Interim order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Section 438 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Keeping in view the petitioner has already been acquitted in the other two FIRs and no recovery has been done from the petitioner in present case and he has been roped on the basis of statement of co-accused -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail, at this stage -- Petitioner directed to join the investigation forthwith and in the event of his arrest, he was ordered to be released on interim bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no further interrogation is required at this stage – Interim order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 303, 212, 201, 387, 120-B, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 29, 54, 59 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner in prison for more than 1 year and 2 months -- Trial is yet to commence inasmuch as even the charges have not been framed and no less than 71 witnesses have been cited on behalf of the Prosecution Side -- Trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude in view of the on-going Covid-19 Pandemic -- Further detention of the Petitioner for an indefinite period is not justified -- As such, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 149, 323, 302, 506, 188, 216 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR wherein several persons have been named, she is stated to be armed with 'danda' and present at the place of occurrence, no specific injury has been attributed to her, she is 37 year old lady with two minor children, is in custody for almost 05 months, is not involved in any other criminal case -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 376(2n), 506 – Rape case -- Relation on pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix already married – Regular bail -- Petitioner was already married -- Prosecutrix was married and staying with GC (the elder brother of her deceased husband) -- Unless the prosecutrix proves that she has taken divorce from GC, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage – Petitioner in custody since 31.08.2020 and the parties being mature enough to understand the implications of such like relationship and trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Section 164, 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 343, 506, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 17 -- Gang rape with minor – Regular bail -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.12.2019 and the victim and her father/complainant have not supported the version of the prosecution, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Section 167(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C), 36-A -- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 18(A), 18(C) -- Default bail – Challan without FSL -- Petitioner ought to be granted bail in any case since he has already remained in detention for more than 8½ months and there is no involvement in any other case under the NDPS Act, and on account of on-going Covid-19 Pandemic, the trial which could not commence is likely to take a considerable time in its completion -- Validity of Division Bench's decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121) cannot at this stage be said to be altogether beyond controversy, since the matter has now been referred for consideration afresh in view of the decision in Julfkar's case (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15385) which has subsequently been followed in the case of Rinku vs. State of Haryana (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15615) -- Criminal Revision allowed at this stage and the Petitioner is permitted to be conditionally released on bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court concerned. In case of any different result coming forth from that in the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of the order, if warranted at that stage.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 364, 302, 34 -- Murder case – Anticipatory bail -- While noticing that It is not a case where any injury is alleged to have been caused to the deceased, petitioner is stated to have joined investigation and is fully cooperating with the police, the petition merits acceptance -- Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 354, 376, 406, 498-A, 506, 511 -- Rape case – Anticipatory bail -- Allegation that when the complainant was present in her room, the petitioner forcibly entered into her room and caught hold of her from the backside and started imposing himself with a bad intention and also started pressing her breasts – Superintendent of Police, was directed to file a specific affidavit as to how the present FIR has been registered u/s 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC keeping in view the allegations in the FIR – As per the statement of the victim and medical report, no case u/s 376 IPC is made out and the same stands deleted and Section 354 IPC has been added subsequently -- Petition allowed, interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 302, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 54, 59 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that petitioner is not involved in any other case and complainant has died prior to conducting his cross-examination and also in view of the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.08.2018, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), 22-B, 22-C, 61, 85 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 180 capsules of Parvorin Spas (Tramadol) and 09 bottles containing Chlospheniramine Maleate & Codeine Phosphate -- Considering the fact that investigation is complete; petitioner is not involved in any other case and the trial is likely to take a long time as out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, the petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Recovery of 255 grams of 'heroin' from dash board of vehicle – Whether it will be conscious possession of passenger – It will be debatable as to whether the petitioners can be attributed conscious possession as normally it would be the owner or driver of the vehicle, who would be said to be having domain over the articles being carried in the vehicle, unless there is other evidence to show the complicity of the other passengers in the said vehicle – In any case, since the petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 7 months, their further detention will not serve any useful purpose -- Petitions accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 27-A – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail -- Recovery of 1 kilogram and 100 grams of ‘opium’ from co-accused – Petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement and has already joined investigation, his custodial interrogation is not warranted – Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.11.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Huge loss to State ex-chequer – Regular bail -- Right of -- It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period -- No doubt, the offence alleged against the accused is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter the Court from enlarging the accused on bail when there is no serious contention of the State that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence -- Petitioner in judicial custody since 07.09.2020 and is not required for any further investigation of the case -- Offences are triable by the Magistrate – Without adverting to the merits of the case and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2012(1) SCC 40 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

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 – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- 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 totality 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 50, 61 – Non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail -- Recovery of 500 grams of ‘Heroin’ from pocket of jacket – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 34, 506 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22-B, 61, 85 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- FSL report is awaited -- Recovery of 610 capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Section 439 – 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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 57 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 379-A, 506 IPC -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 439 – 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 – Dacoity case -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 82, 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 452 and 307 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 120-B, 34 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Recovery of 950 intoxicating tablets -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Section 167(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

Section 439 – 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 – 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 -- Direction given to release the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

Section 439 – Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Sections 61, 78(2) -- Excise matter -- Regular bail -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302/34 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

Section 439 – 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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 346/34, 302, 364, 201, 411, 404, 120-B -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Section 439 – 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 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29 , 50 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 37 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Section 389 -- 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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(n) -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(b) -- NDPS case – Interim bail awaiting FSL report -- Petitioner in judicial custody since 10.06.2020 -- Petitioner restricted his prayer to the extent that the petitioner may be released on interim bail till the report of FSL is received – Division Bench of High Court in case of 'Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi's case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 has held that the accused-petitioner can be granted interim bail till the report of FSL is received -- Accordingly, the petitioner ordered to be released on interim bail till receipt of the FSL report.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Section 164, 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 12 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 – POCSO case -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has refused to go through the medical examination -- In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she denied of any allegation of physical relation -- Petition for regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 319, 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 34 -- Dowry death case – Regular bail -- Petitioner/ husband in custody for about two years -- As against total 21 witnesses only 01 witness has been examined so far -- Moreover, the prosecution has moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C., so as to summon sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased -- In this manner, trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future as the application filed u/s 319 Cr.P.C., is pending consideration before the trial court – Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment to suicide -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and recovery has been effected -- Affidavit of the complainant has also been filed recalling the earlier allegations – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (Punjab Act 2 of 2013), Section 13 -- Second bail application for anticipatory bail -- Petitioner alleged to have received a sum of Rs.9 lacs, in order to help the first informant’s son to immigrate to Canada -- First informant and the petitioner have settled the matter not disputed by first informant – Arrest of the petitioner stayed subject to the petitioner joining investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer -- Petitioner shall be bound by the conditions as envisaged under 438 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365, 392, 395, 506, 148, 149 IPC – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Dacoity case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was granted interim bail and joined the Investigation -- Complainant had also filed an affidavit that the petitioner was not involved – Petition allowed – Interim bail order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 – Regular bail – Parity with co-accused -- Another co-accused was granted bail – State has failed to draw the attention of the Court to any distinguishing features except that the petitioner is involved in 7 more cases, out of which 3 are under NDPS Act, 1985 – Held, present case is required to be decided on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution -- A coordinate Bench has already considered the aforesaid facts, while granting the concession of bail -- Petitioner also ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22, 25, 61, 85 29 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- State submitted that number of cases are pending against the petitioner – Held, recovery in the present case was only 50 grams of intoxicant powder (heroin), which is stated to be non-commercial -- Petitioner is in custody for the last one year – Petition for regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 500 grams of Heroin -- Petitioner in custody for 01 year, 09 months and 20 days – Two more cases registered against him, but petitioner is on bail – As against total 10 witnesses only 01 witness has been examined -- Trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Dowry death case – Regular bail of parents-in-law -- Petitioners in custody since 25.03.2020, investigation is complete as the challan has already been presented – Husband of the deceased is still in custody and the petitioners herein are willing to give an undertaking that they will look after the minor girls, who are currently residing with their daughters -- In order to ensure the welfare and wellbeing of the minor girls, it was directed that the petitioners will file an undertaking before the trial court that they will take care of their wellbeing, education and day-to-day needs etc. and they will furnish FDRs in the name of the minor girls of Rs. 5 lacs each, which will not be encashed till the minor girls attain the majority -- Petition allowed, petitioners directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 167(2) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A (4) -- NDPS case -- Default bail – Compulsive bail – Appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2018, hence the mandatory period of 180 days prescribed for filing of final report u/s 167(2), CrPC (excluding the date of remand) was completed on 31.01.2019 – Appellant-accused had exercised his option to obtain bail by filing the application at 10:30 a.m. on the 181st day of his arrest, i.e., immediately after the court opened, on 01.02.2019 -- Public Prosecutor had not filed any application seeking extension of time to investigate into the crime prior to 31.01.2019 or prior to 10:30 a.m. on 01.02.2019 -- Public Prosecutor participated in the arguments on the bail application till 4:25 p.m. on the day it was filed -- It was only thereafter that the additional complaint came to be lodged against the Appellant – Held, appellant-accused was deemed to have availed of his indefeasible right to bail, the moment he filed an application for being released on bail and offered to abide by the terms and conditions of the bail order, i.e. at 10:30 a.m. on 01.02.2019 – Petitioner was held entitled to be released on bail notwithstanding the subsequent filing of an additional complaint.

(SC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Section 167 (2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A (4) -- Default bail – Compulsive bail – In common legal parlance, the right to bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) is commonly referred to as ‘default bail’ or ‘compulsive bail’ as it is granted on account of the default of the investigating agency in not completing the investigation within the prescribed time, irrespective of the merits of the case. Held, Once the accused files an application for bail u/s 167(2) he is deemed to have ‘availed of’ or enforced his right to be released on default bail, accruing after expiry of the stipulated time limit for investigation. Thus, if the accused applies for bail under Section 167(2), CrPC read with Section 36A (4), NDPS Act upon expiry of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, the Court must release him on bail forthwith without any unnecessary delay after getting necessary information from the public prosecutor, as mentioned supra. Such prompt action will restrict the prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate to release the accused on bail in case of default by the investigative agency -- The right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application; or subsequent filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking extension of time by the prosecution before the Court; or filing of the chargesheet during the interregnum when challenge to the rejection of the bail application is pending before a higher Court -- However, where the accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues to him, and subsequently a chargesheet, additional complaint or a report seeking extension of time is preferred before the Magistrate, the right to default bail would be extinguished. The Magistrate would be at liberty to take cognizance of the case or grant further time for completion of the investigation, as the case may be, though the accused may still be released on bail under other provisions of the CrPC -- Notwithstanding the order of default bail passed by the Court, by virtue of Explanation I to Section 167(2), the actual release of the accused from custody is contingent on the directions passed by the competent Court granting bail. If the accused fails to furnish bail and/or comply with the terms and conditions of the bail order within the time stipulated by the Court, his continued detention in custody is valid.

(SC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 452, 307, 323, 324, 120-B – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner alongwith some other persons had attacked son of the complainant and the role attributed to the petitioner was datar blow on the left thumb of the victim -- Interim protection was granted to the petitioner and joined investigation and has co-operated with the investigation process and the recovery has already been made – He is no longer required for custodial investigation -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 377, 388, 389, 109, 115, 116, 120-B – Unnatural offence – Co-accused granted bail – Right of similarly situated co-accused -- Same benefit cannot be declined to the petitioner unless and until certain differentiating facts are brought to the notice between the petitioner and the said co-accused -- As no differentiating fact has been brought to the notice, therefore the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Parity with similarly situated co-accused – Right of -- Once, a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted the bail, the same could not be denied to the petitioner unless and until any differentiating fact is pointed out -- No differentiating fact has been pointed out between the petitioner and co-accused -- Hence, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for the grant of bail on the ground of parity with co-accused – Without commenting upon the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – NDPS case – Regular bail – 1500 intoxicating tablets recovered – Keeping in view that the petitioner is a licensed chemist, entitled to the possession of such tablets and was apprehended while travelling, therefore, his culpability is subject to evidence at the trial -- Petitioner is behind the bars for more than one year, it would be travesty of justice to keep him in custody for more time -- Efforts are being made by the authorities to decongest the jails to prevent the further spread of malady (Covid-19), petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of 7600 intoxicating tablets -- Recovery already stands effected -- Petitioners are in custody since 25.08.2019 -- FIR is based on secret information, thus, culpability, conscious possession of which accused if any, would be determined at the time of trial -- Since, the petitioners are behind the bars for more than one year and in view of present COVID-19 pandemic and the efforts of the authorities in decongesting the jail which are busting the seams and the ratios cited for parity, Court deems it fit to allow the regular bail to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Section 482 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22, 25, 29, 61 -- NDPS case -- Interim bail for marriage of younger sister – Petitioner is the only male member in the family -- No doubt, the petitioner is found involved in recovery of huge quantity of contraband, but noticing the fact that there are certain customary rites/rituals which can only be performed by a brother in the marriage of his real sister, Court deems it appropriate to grant interim bail to the petitioner for a period of one week from the date of his release.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.10.2020

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 323, 325, 341, 452, 458, 459, 506, 148, 149 – Anticipatory bail -- Injuries are attributed to the other accused -- Concession of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners for the reason that they are ladies and they have not been attributed any injury on the vital part of the two victims – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)D, 13(2) – Regular bail -- Challan presented and even the FIR was registered after holding a preliminary enquiry -- Petitioner is already a retired employee and hence, cannot temper with any record, which is already in the possession of the police -- No useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further as the trial is likely to take some time -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of benefit of regular bail -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.10.2020

Section 439, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(D), 376, 511, 504, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 – Rape case -- Interim bail on medical ground by High Court – No satisfaction recorded by the High Court that treatment offered to respondent/accused was not adequate and he requires any further treatment by any particular medical institute for which it is necessary to release the respondent on interim bail on medical grounds -- Even as on date, due medical care is being taken of the respondent/accused -- High Court, without considering the entire materials on record, has passed the impugned order, which is unsustainable – Appeal allowed, order granting interim bail set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 167(2), 437 -- Default bail – Condition to deposit Rs.8,00,000/- – Permissibility of – Held, only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail u/s 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be -- And within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail -- Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. -- Condition imposed by the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Condition quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 167(2) -- Default bail -- Condition directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned is unsustainable, as it is too harsh -- Instead, condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail – Condition modified by Supreme Court.

(SC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail – Names of the petitioner(s) does not find mentioned in the FIR and their names have been mentioned in supplement statement, it is a case of no injury and firing of two gun shots have not been attributed to the petitioner(s) – Interim bail granted with a direction to join the investigation -- Factual position not disputed, though petitioners have joined the investigation but the weapon has not been recovered -- Sufficient exceptional circumstances are made out to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners – Interim bail order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 304-B, 302 – Dowry death case – FIR u/s 306/34 IPC – Charges framed u/s 304-B and alternative Section 302 IPC – Regular bail -- Investigation in the case is complete and challan has been presented – Petitioner has three children i.e two daughters and one son -- Petitioner being in custody, there is no one to look after the minor children who are exposed to the probability of being infected with the Covid-19 virus -- It has been medically proven that children of that age are more susceptible to get infected due to their lower level of immunity and therefore, they need 24x7 constant care and attention -- As regards allegations, the same can only be adjudicated in the course of trial, which is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon due to Covid-19 pandemic -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 483 & 120-B IPC – Nine vehicles financed by co-accused – Non-payment of instalments -- Regular bail – Petitioner purchased two vehicles -- Fake documents for registration -- Case is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class -- Petitioner is in custody since 12.08.2020 -- One of the main accused, has already been released on bail on 20.07.2019 -- Still further, the petitioner herein is neither a borrower nor a guarantor – Direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.10.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 120-B, 384, 370 – Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 – Anticipatory bail -- Delay of over two years in registering the FIR -- Co-accused were paid money through bank transactions while the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash for sending the son of the complainant abroad -- Matter had earlier been compromised on 30.12.2018 -- Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case – Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he was ordered to be released on ad-interim bail – Although, petitioner has joined investigation but recovery of the money has to be effected – In view of the submission and Covid-19 situation, interim bail granted to the petitioner is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.10.2020

Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22-B – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Interim order that no recovery effected from the petitioner and he has been roped in on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is yet to be proved and further that he is not involved in any other case and petitioner is ready to join the investigation, direction given in the event of his arrest, petitioner order to be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating – Thereafter, petitioner has joined the investigation and no further interrogation is required, at this stage – Order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 25 -- NDPS case -- Interim bail -- Considering the fact that the petitioners have been in custody for the last more than 01 year and 06 months; the petitioners are not involved in any other case and conclusion of the trial would take time due to COVID-19 situation, the petitioners were directed to be released on interim bail till 14.01.2021 –Trial Court, after assessing the situation may continue with the interim bail granted to the petitioners till further orders and in case, the trial Court resumes recording evidence, it will be open for the trial Court to cancel such interim bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 – Culpable homicide -- Right of private defence – Regular bail – In view of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and evidence against the petitioner, the fact that debatable question as to whether the petitioner legitimately exercised right of private defence or exceeded the same is involved and the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19, Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.10.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-B, 120-B, 201, 411 – Beating and snatching – Regular bail -- Petitioner was named in the disclosure statement and recovery of Rs.15,000/- was made from him -- No case pending against the petitioner -- Challan has been presented and charges framed but no witnesses have been examined -- Considering that during the pendency of the trial, the general rule is bail and not jail, investigation is complete, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time -- Emerging of the name of the petitioner in the disclosure statement made to the police itself makes prima facie arguable issue for the petitioner -- Petitioner is granted bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 50 – NDPS case – Regular Bail -- Joint offer of search – Recovery of 100 kg of Poppy Husk from the dicky of the car -- It will be debatable as to whether a joint offer as extended in the present case is valid or not -- Even otherwise, the petitioner has been in custody since 06.10.2018 -- Though the case is at the stage of evidence, yet the 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS case -- Recovery of Charas weighing 1 kg 100 grams – Regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested on 15.04.2019 and considering the health condition of the petitioner, interim bail was granted on 20.01.2020 -- As against total 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 06 witnesses have been examined, trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 510 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol – Petitioner is in custody for a period of 1 year, 2 months and 22 days and no other case has been pointed out against the petitioner -- No prosecution witness has been examined so far -- Considering the fact that trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future due to Covid-19 pandemic, this Court deems it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B -- Snatching of mobile and cash – Regular bail -- A mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner on the basis of his disclosure statement and nothing remains to be recovered from him -- Challan has been presented and no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner in custody -- Moreover, conclusion of the trial will take some time keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation – Appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 29 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of contraband from co-accused – Petitioner nominated on disclosure statement of co-accused – Petitioner in custody since 08.05.2020; investigation is complete as the challan has already been presented; no recovery was effected from him and conclusion of trial will take sufficient time because of limited working of the courts due to Covid-19 pandemic -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case – Supplier of contraband – Regular bail -- Petitioner provided 200 intoxicating capsules (Salt Tramadol) to co-accused -- Name of the petitioner was disclosed by co-accused and he is behind bars since 04.08.2020 -- Main accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail -- Trial of the case will take long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.10.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324, 323, 379-B, 148, 149 – Snatching – Regular bail – Out of three other cases, petitioner is on bail in two and in third case after conviction on bail in pending appeal – In present case only non-bailable offence u/s 379-B of the IPC -- An amount of Rs.3,000/- was snatched away from the pocket of the complainant by the accused persons named by him, which included 7 other culprits apart from the petitioner and it was not alleged that the petitioner alone was the one who robbed the complainant of this amount -- Long detention since 13.07.2020, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 34, 363, 366, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3 and 4 -- Rape and kidnapping of girl-child – Regular bail -- Petitioner was not initially named as an accused in the FIR -- Implicated only upon the disclosure statement of the named accused – Case of the complainant was that her daughter had been enticed away by the named accused on the pretext of marriage -- Complainant did not name the petitioner as being involved -- Victim girl did not even mention the petitioner's name in her statement made before the police -- Named accused has already secured bail in this case -- Challan has already been filed -- No specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner -- Petition allowed, direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Recovery of 53.1 kg Poppy Straw is marginally above the commercial quantity – Petitioner remained in detention for almost 07 months – Not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Charges have been framed, trial is likely to take its own considerable time due to ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic -- Regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

Section 438, 446 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance in Trial – Presence ordered to secure through warrant of arrest -- Anticipatory bail -- On account of an accident accused got fracture on his leg and could not appear -- Resultantly, his presence was ordered to be secured through warrant of arrest – Petition disposed of, accused shall surrender before trial Court within fifteen days positively and on surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court -- Trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 446 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in accordance with law -- Meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to warrant of arrest already issued against him.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 354, 341, 323, 365, 506, 148/149 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(s) – Murder case – Regular bail -- S.I.T. upon examining the 'Call Detail Records', had come to a conclusion that as per 'Tower Location' information, none of the two petitioners was present at the spot at the time of occurrence – None of the petitioners is attributed the fatal blow either as per the FIR or as per the supplementary statement made by the complainant -- Petitioners have been behind bars since the last more than 6 months and challan already stands presented -- None of the petitioners is stated to be involved in any other case, as per the custody certificate -- Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 201, 420, 465 467, 471, 472 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-D – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Section 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 366 -- Kidnapping –Conspiracy – Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Appellants facilitating procurement of Sim Card – 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.

(SC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 427, 435, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Section 82, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 364, 148, 149 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

Section 439 – 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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.09.2020

Section 167, 173 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A(4) -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2020

Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307, 506, 427 and 120B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.09.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 323, 325, 452, 34 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 308, 323, 341, 148, 149 -- 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 baseball 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 336, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 and 27 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376-D, 420, 367, 370 – Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (2 of 2013), Section 13 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Section 389 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37 -- NDPS matter – Long 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.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 82, 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 306 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 82, 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 452, 427, 506, 34 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(n) – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 307, 452, 188, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 29 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 439 – 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 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.09.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2020

Section 439, 482 -- Electricity Act, 2003 (No.36 of 2003), Section 136 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 341, 354C, 506, 120-B -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2) N, 452 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.09.2020

Section 439 -- 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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2020

Section 439 -- 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 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.08.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 61, 85 -- NDPS matter – Second 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 61, 85 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.08.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 423, 120-B -- Cheating by way of registered sale deed – Attesting witness – Role of – Anticipatory bail -- Complainant alleged to be cheated by her niece and her niece’s husband in relation to certain immovable property, fraudulently transferred by way of a registered sale deed -- Petitioner was one of the attesting witnesses to the said document -- This being the limited role attributed to him, Court opined that it would suffice if he joins investigation at this stage and co-operates with the police -- Petition allowed and he shall forthwith join investigation and in the event his arrest is warranted in future in relation to this case, the petitioner shall be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 302, 34 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366, 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376-D, 363, 366-A, 376, 506, 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3,4 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3,4 -- Gang rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix supported the prosecution version, however, she turned hostile in respect of other accused -- Out of 20 prosecution witnesses, 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Petitioner is in custody since July, 2018 -- Due to the situation arising out of COVID-19 pandemic, the administration has imposed restrictions to curb its spread, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(B)(II) -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 – Rape case (POCSO) – Regular bail – Love affair matter -- Compromise for marriage of petitioner and prosecutrix – Adjudication of question of guilt or innocence of the petitioner on the basis of evidence to be produced during trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19 and that further detention of the petitioner in custody 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 439 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 16 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 439 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354, 452 -- POCSO matter – Compromise between the parties – Regular bail -- Allegations that while victim’s parents were away, the accused/petitioner gained forcibly entry into her room and scuffled with her -- It is only when the victim called out to her sister that the accused ran away -- Petitioner was arrested on 29.05.2020 – Investigation in the case is complete and the challan already stands presented -- It is not a case of sexual assault – Compromise has since been effected with the intervention of the village elders – Petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B -- Cheating – Regular bail -- Offences registered against the petitioner are triable by the Judicial Magistrate -- Law is more liberal with regard to grant of bail to a woman -- Challan has been presented in the Court but conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201, 411, 115 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that he was handed over the weapon after the incident was over and that too by the main accused while the petitioner was in his own house -- Co-accused, from whom the motorcycle, on which the main accused was riding, was purchased has been granted bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201, 34 – Murder case – Dead body not recovered -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is brother-in-law of the deceased -- Entire family i.e. wife, minor son and the present petitioner, being the brother of the wife of the deceased has been enroped, whereas, dead body has not been recovered till date and the only evidence is the extra judicial confession -- Petition allowed, petitioner released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 202, 392, 396, 404, 412, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Dacoity with murder -- Regular bail -- Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence -- Petitioner in custody since 17.07.2015 and has been inculpated on the statement of the co-accused -- Chilli powder recovered from the petitioner -- Truck, of which the deceased were driver and conductor, was recovered from other co-accused, as was the weapon of offence – No allegation that the petitioner is likely to abscond or influence witnesses -- Due to outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19 trial is not likely to be concluded in near future -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated any longer – Petition allowed, petitioner be released on bail pending trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 29, 52-A – NDPS case -- Second petition for regular bail – New ground for filing the petition is FSL report – Submission that sample was received after a delay of 06 days from passing of order by the JMIC and for the said period, it remained in the custody of I.O and there is no explanation in this regard -- In the FSL report, no batch number of the strips were mentioned though it is specifically mentioned in the order of JMIC and in Form 29-B – Petitioner is in judicial custody for the last 01 year, 01 month and 21 days and charged were framed on 30.01.2020 and till date, out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined -- Petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act of non-commercial quantity and the petitioner is on bail -- Considering the long custody of the petitioner as well as the submissions made, petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS matter – Regular bail -- Recovery of 50 vials of Winicirex Cough Syrup and 400 tablets of Carisoma – Petitioners are in custody since 13.06.2019 and there is no other case pending against them -- In absence of any specific allegation in the FIR as to which of the petitioners was holding the strip of the bag and considering the fact that trial in the case will take sufficient long time -- Petitioners admitted on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS matter – Regular bail -- 1300 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride total weight comes to 546.169 grams recovered – Petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2020 -- Challan has been presented and charges are yet to be framed -- Since trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in the near future and there being no other case against the petitioner – Petition allowed, petitioner admitted on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS matter – Regular bail -- Recovery of 18 injections of Buprenorphine of 2 ml each -- Though 18 injections of Avil of 10 ml each were also recovered from the petitioner, but the same do not fall within the ambit of NDPS Act -- No other case pending against the petitioner and he is in custody since 19.06.2019 -- Considering the fact that trial in the case will take sufficient long time, petitioner released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Section 389, 439 – Bail is rule and jail is an exception -- Regular bail – Suspension of sentence – There is a difference between grant of bail u/s 439 of the CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence u/s 389 of the CrPC and grant of bail, post-conviction -- In the earlier case there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception -- In case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Section 389(1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Cancellation of -- Death took place within 7 or 8 months and there is oral evidence of the parents of cruelty and torture immediately preceding the death -- Also evidence of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent-Accused by the victim’s brother -- Respondent No.2-accused has not been able to demonstrate any apparent and/or obvious illegality or error in the judgment of the Sessions Court, to call for suspension of execution of the sentence. Held, in considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous -- Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail -- Appellant spent money beyond his financial capacity, at the wedding of the victim and had even gifted an I-10 car -- Failure to lodge an FIR complaining of dowry and harassment before the death of the victim is inconsequential -- Parents and other family members of the victim obviously would not want to precipitate a complete breakdown of the marriage by lodging an FIR against the Respondent No.2 and his parents, while the victim was alive. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender for being taken into custody -- The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Section 389(1) -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors -- There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Section 389(1), 389(3) -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – In view of mandate of Section 389(3) of the CrPC, the principles are different in the case of sentence not exceeding three years and/or in the case of bailable offences -- Discretion u/s 389(1) is to be exercised judicially, the Appellate Court is obliged to consider whether any cogent ground has been disclosed, giving rise to substantial doubts about the validity of the conviction and whether there is likelihood of unreasonable delay in disposal of the appeal.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Section 389 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A -- Conviction for dowry death – Suspension of sentence -- Appellant is confined in jail from 15.12.2016 onwards and father of the appellant was diagnosed with pancolitis – Appeal pending before the High Court – Without going into the merits of the matter, considering the submissions and other material placed on record and further taking into account that the appellant is in jail since 15.12.2016, sentence suspended.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B -- Anticipatory bail -- Cheating -- Case pertains to an agreement to sell -- Petitioner was shown as one of the witness therein -- This being the limited role attributed to him, it would suffice if the petitioner cooperates with the police -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to forthwith join investigation and in event of his arrest shall be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 323, 377, 379-B, 34 – Unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Allegations that two persons in a drunken condition had slapped the complainant, taken away his phone and then called up his mother and thereafter the 3rd person (unnamed) took him besides the canal and did a wrong act with him -- A sum of Rs.5000/- and two mobile phones were also snatched – Initial allegation was against an unnamed person -- Complainant suffered a supplementary statement in which the name of the present petitioner has figured – DNA report of the complainant also does not support the prosecution version -- Petitioner was arrested on 18.11.2019 -- Trial is at the initial stage and would take time to conclude particularly keeping in view the current Covid-19 situation -- Petitioner held entitled to the benefit of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B – Complainant also part of illegal activity – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since January, 2020 -- Challan filed -- Allegations against the petitioner is that he took money from the complainant to get him admission in MBBS -- If it is so, then the complainant too is equally indulging in the illegal activity -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22C -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 1500 capsules of Ridlay Parvorin-Spas Tramadol -- 15 witnesses to be examined, petitioner in custody for more than one year -- Keeping in view that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 980 loose intoxicant tablets containing salt of Alprazolam – 5 grams above the commercial quantity – Keeping in view order granting concession of bail to the co-accused and the fact that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 25 – NDPS matter – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Recovery of 5 grams heroin and 270 grams of intoxicant powder -- Commercial quantity is 250 grams -- Hence, the quantity recovered is marginally higher than the commercial quantity – Keeping in view recovery of marginally higher than the commercial quantity of intoxicant powder and that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 25, 37 – Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 400 strips of TREDOL-100 – Petitioner in custody since 03.07.2019 – Out of 12 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date – Bail opposed on the ground that recovery from the petitioner is commercial in quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for concession of bail – Held, trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail. Judgment dated 10.08.2020 passed in CRM-M-12541-2020 titled as Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha V/s. State of Punjab relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Run-away marriage – FIR under POCSO/IPC – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Now victim has been residing at her matrimonial home -- Petitioner has been in custody since 06.6.2020 -- Trial will take time to conclude -- 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 is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395, 397, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Dacoity – Regular bail -- No other evidence against the petitioner as on date except the statement of the co-accused which cannot be read against him -- Similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail – Petition allowed, petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- 255 gram of heroin recovered – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 13 months – Till date, no witness has been examined, the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and the recovery, which has been effected from the petitioner, is marginally above commercial quantity and no case pending against the petitioner -- Petition allowed, petitioner be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2020

Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of Tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride with a total weight of 413.92 grams recovered -- Challan has been filed but none of the 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined – In view of the submissions, especially when the petitioner is in custody for over 10 months, he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 313, 323, 34, 376 (2) (n), 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 – Rape on pretext to marriage – Regular bail – Prosecutrix is still married, no legal divorce and only statement that she got divorce before panchayat – Material witness i.e. prosecutrix has already been examined and there is no likelihood of petitioner influencing the trial, as there are no such allegations – Petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2019, regular bail granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.08.2020

Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 – Compromise between the parties – Regular bail -- Investigation is already over and challan has also been filed -- Prosecutrix seems to have made complaint under the pressure of her parents, which led to registration of FIR in question -- Petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2020 -- Trial is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon on account of current pandemic conditions due to COVID-19 -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.08.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 380, 452, 34 (lateron added 395, 397) – Regular bail – Compromise between the parties – Seeing the nature of accusation against the petitioners and also the fact that trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of Covid-19 concession of regular bail extended to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 22 – NDPS matter – Regular bail -- 55 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules (total 1320 in number) and 14 plastic vials of Corex Syrup were recovered -- Petitioner was not arrested on the spot, there is no question of effecting any recovery of contraband from his conscious possession – Petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2019 -- Disclosure statement of the co-accused is not sufficient enough to establish the petitioner's culpability satisfactorily -- Petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases, however, there is no mention of the petitioner being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Long detention undergone by the petitioner, as also the fact that the trial is not likely to be commenced or completed in a reasonable time on account of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic -- Ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21,22,29 – NDPS matter -- Possession of 4,000 tablets containing Clavidol (Tramadol) and 05 grams of heroin – Petitioner, who is a lady with two minor children, is in custody for over 11 months, she is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376(2) (n), 120-B – Rape case – Minor girl aged 15 years – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had left the house alongwith accused of her own and they had established physical relations with each other -- She also stated that she wanted to marry with accused -- Interim bail for a period of one month to perform marriage with the victim granted -- Marriage with the victim solemnised on 21.07.2020 -- Petitioners (Husband and brother-in-law) have been in custody since January, 2020, challan has already been presented -- Victim and her parents have given statements in favour of the petitioners -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Section 167(2), 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- 50 kg of Poppy husk weighed with bag -- Default bail – Regular bail -- In case the poppy husk had been weighed separately from the bags wherein it was contained, it would not have come under the commercial quantity -- Challan ought to have been presented within a period of 60 days, considering the fact that the recovery was not of commercial quantity, which has not been done -- There is delay in the presentation of challan – Bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.07.2020

Section 167(2) -- Default bail – Delay in furnishing bail bonds – Effect of -- Petitioner did “avail of” his right u/s 167(2) of the Code and furnished personal bail bond with surety, which was accepted and attested by the Court, he would be deemed to have been released from custody -- Petitioner was not released because two other cases were pending against him – Surety withdrew the surety furnished by him -- Court permitted the petitioner to furnish fresh bail bond with surety -- Since he was in custody in other cases, therefore, he did not furnish the fresh bail bond with surety – After granted bail in other cases, petitioner requested the Court to accept the personal bail bond with surety as directed vide earlier order, which was declined – Held, mere delay in furnishing personal bail bonds/surety cannot visit the petitioner with adverse consequences and the order granting bail u/s 167(2) of the Code does not cease to exist or comes to an end or stand eclipsed -- Petitioner is directed to furnish personal bail bonds with surety and thereafter ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2020

Section 438 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 10,12 -- Anticipatory bail by minor/ juvenile – Maintainability of -- An inference cannot drawn that the legislature intended to debar a juvenile from seeking relief of pre-arrest bail -- Children below age of 18 years coming within definition of juvenile be treated with kindness and compassion even if they are found in conflict with law – Could not be the intention of the legislature that such juvenile should be first apprehended and then produce before Juvenile Justice Board -- Petition is found to be maintainable.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2020

Section 167(2) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 7A -- Default bail – Right of – Accused on interim Bail – Effect of -- Petitioner remaining behind bars for a period of less than two weeks till date cannot cry foul and ask for bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 366, 376, 506, 120-B, 34 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has categorically deposed as to having been raped by the petitioner -- However, State has not been able to dispute the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, where she has admitted that she had gone with the petitioner to various places -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2018 and that out of 14, only 8 witnesses have been examined so far -- Petition allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420 IPC -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of1983), Section 10, 24 – Immigration matter – Anticipatory bail -- Rs.3 lacs paid to co-accused -- It is not disputed that the petitioner is not directly related to co-accused -- No amount is stated to have been paid to the petitioner -- Anticipatory bail granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 366, 376, 494 – Rape case – Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2019 -- In the interest of both the sides, the matter has been compromised between the parties -- Complainant has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61 – Anticipatory bail -- 450 tablets of tramadol recovered from co-accused, who apprehended at the spot, named another person from whom he purchased – Later petitioner has been implicated on the statement of other co-accused – On direction, petitioner joined Investigaiton and released on ad-interim bail – In view that petitioner joined investigation and not required for custodial interrogation, the Covid-19 Pandemic, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Regular bail -- Allegation that couple entered into marriage and boy side to spend money to facilitate immigration of couple to Canada – Girl has been successful in migrating to Canada and the boy has failed to do so and apparently appears to be a matrimonial dispute – A debatable issue arises over the very applicability of Section 420 IPC and his joining the investigation would suffice the purpose – Petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and on his doing so, he shall be released on bail till submission of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) – Thereafter, he will be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34, 452, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Murder case – Lalkara alleged -- Regular bail – Petitioner is attributed only a 'lalkara', he is in custody for over 09 months, the complainant and 02 eye witnesses have been examined, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Tramadol tablets (282 grams) – Regular bail -- Intoxicating tablets containing tramadol with a total weight of 282 grams has allegedly been recovered from her – Petitioner is a lady with two minor children, is in custody for over 09 months, she is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85 – Alprasafe (2900 tablets of 05 mg each) were recovered from two – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2020 -- Applicability of provisions of NDPS Act or Drugs and Cosmetics Act, is a debatable question that will be adjudicated at the trial only -- In the present scenario of Covid-19 pandemic where the Courts are working with restrictions and taking up only urgent matters, there is no likelihood of commencing or concluding of trial in near future -- Petitioner is a widow with minor children -- FSL report has yet not received to ascertain the quantity of the alleged scheduled drug contained therein -- Petition is allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 324, 34, 506 – Criminal intimidation – Anticipatory bail -- All the offences except the offence under Section 506 IPC, alleged against the petitioners are bailable -- Petitioners are granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 324, 326, 458, 34 – Grievous hurt not attributed to petitioner -- Anticipatory bail -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature and one of the co-accused has already been granted protection against his arrest – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 406, 120-B, 506 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Keeping in view the cumulative facts that there was relationship interse the parties from the year 2014 till the application was given in the year 2019 and they had also travelled out of station to various places, it would be a moot question as such as to whether an offence u/s 376 IPC is made out -- Similarly whether there was any cheating and inducement -- Petitioner has already undergone 5 months and 10 days imprisonment -- Considerable time shall be taken in concluding the trial especially in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner has undergone sufficient period of detention and he is entitled for the benefit of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 307, 341 & 506 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner, however police had not recovered even any empties/fire bullet from the spot -- In this incident no injury is caused to the complainant by any fire arm – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 451, 109, 323 & 34 – Outrage modesty of woman – Anticipatory bail -- In attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant, petitioner had pulled the chunni of the complainant and also caused bruises with his hands on the face and breast of the complainant -- However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had not used any weapon -- Therefore, nothing is required to be recovered from him, as such – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Recovery of 2 ½ kilograms of opium – Regular bail – By consideration the fact that petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2019; that petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose; that challan has been presented in the Court; that trial has already commenced and since consequent 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 – Regular bail granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 50 – NDPS matter – Joint Memo of recovery – Regular bail -- Consent memo and recovery memo shows that a joint memo was prepared and even a joint consent was taken from the accused persons – High Court has issued guidelines from time to time with regard to investigation to be carried out in the NDPS cases, however, it appears that the investigating officers are not following the same -- Petition allowed -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 37 -- NDPS matter – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recovery of heroin weighing 322 grams and 66 mili gram from two accused – Disclosure statement implicating the petitioner as the person from they borrowed the heroine -- Recovery of 53 grams 63 mili grams from petitioner -- Prima facie, due to inadmissibility of disclosure statements of co-accused in evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from his co-accused and Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act will not be applicable qua the petitioner – Petition allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 34 – Kidnapping/ Abduction of girl -- Regular bail -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and the fact that the prosecutrix has given statement that she has gone on its own with the accused, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 120-B – Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner has neither alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix nor has he done anything, which would be termed as an overt act and further the petitioner in custody, has now completed more than 14 months -- With the prevailing circumstances, trial is not likely to proceed soon as the Courts are not recording evidence at present -- Petitioner is directed to be release on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 25, 50 – Recovery of 60 Kgs. of Dodapost -- Investigating Officer, when apprehended both the petitioners, gave them notice u/s 50 of the Act, in which the petitioners gave consent to be searched by the Investigating Officer and not before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and thereafter, the same Investigating Officer conducted the search and recovered 60 Kgs. of Dodapost from the petitioners – Charges have been framed, however, no prosecution witness has been examined so far – Without commenting upon merits, considering the facts that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 25.11.2019 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, the petitions allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2), 506, 201 – Allegation of rape – No medical examination – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years and the trial is likely to take sufficient long time due to Covid-19 – FIR has been lodged after one year of the occurrence and even the medical examination of the complainant was not got conducted at the relevant point of time or subsequent thereto, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose -- Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376(3) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the prosecution case, the petitioner is in custody for almost a year -- Covid 19 pandemic and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 376(2) – Kidnapping and rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has failed to support the prosecution version nor her mother i.e. complainant has supported the prosecution story – Challan has been filed, charges have been framed and out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 05 have been examined -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, especially during the prevailing conditions of corona virus pandemic -- Petition for regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.07.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Allegation of cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail -- Dispute regarding agreement to sell and receiving of Rs.10 lacs -- Petitioner No.1 is ready to deposit the said amount in the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, subject to final outcome of the case, to show his bona fide -- Admitted case of the complainant that they had business transactions with the petitioners and have already filed suit for recovery – Held, entire case is based upon the documentary evidence for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required -- Petitioners are directed to be released on interim bail -- Two month time granted to deposit the amount of Rs.10 lacs before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate without prejudice to their right of defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2020

Section 167(2) – Default bail – Period of challan to be reckoned -- It is now settled that the word ‘custody’ occurring in the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. encompasses police custody as well as judicial custody.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2020

Section 167(2) – Default bail – Petitioner not arrested kept in Column no. 2 -- Evidence necessary for commencement of trial collected by the investigating agency -- Warrants of arrest had been requested for – Held, it is not essential for a person to be arrested before a challan can be presented against him -- Only requirement for applicability of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is that investigation should be pending against the petitioner -- Trial Court dismissed the application for default bail – No merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2020

Section 167(2), 173 – Default bail – Language of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is clear -- If a challan is not presented within the said period, the accused gets an indefeasible right to bail which cannot be defeated by filing the challan after 90 days but before the release of an accused on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 354-A, 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 8 -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 09.08.2019 -- Prosecutrix has denied the fact that the petitioner established physical relations with her -- Prosecutrix was got declared hostile by the prosecution – It would not be appropriate to further continue to incarcerate the petitioner – Conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 506, 148, 149 – Charges framed u/s 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC – Attempt to murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner suffered three injuries including two fractures on the fingers of his left hand – Though in the said case, the police had filed a cancellation report, yet the fact remains that in the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the proceedings are pending before the SDJM – Petitioner is attributed a sword blow on the abdomen of Taya of the complainant -- Whether or not the petitioner is an aggressor, is yet to be determined -- Petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2019 -- Challan has already been presented and the charges have also been framed -- Petition allowed, regular bail granted to petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.06.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 188, 323, 324, 326, 427, 506, 120-B – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 03.05.2020 -- FIR reflects that no specific overt acts were attributed to him -- Petitioner is presently aged about 77 years – Petitioner held entitled to grant of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.06.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 307, 379-B, 427, 436, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No material except the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 23.02.2020, challan having been presented but charges yet to be framed – Bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.06.2020

Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B -- Trial not commenced – Prosecution rests mainly on documents -- Regular bail – Appellant, who is admittedly 62 years of age has already spent nearly a year in judicial custody -- A period of nine months has passed from the date of filing of the charge sheet -- Charges have not been framed and the trial has not commenced as yet -- Though much is said about the tempering of witnesses, it is seen from the material on record that the prosecution rests mainly on documents -- In any case, the prosecution is not remediless, if a person enlarged on bail, indulges in certain activities – Held, appellant is entitled to bail.

(SC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 167(2) – Default bail – Covid-19 restriction – Effect of -- Neither eclipsed the time prescribed u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed.

(SC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 164, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 12 – Kidnapping – Allegation of aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Regular bail -- Bollywood movie “Bobby” like run away couple cases seem to be rampantly happening in the society -- Boy aged 19/20 years and girl aged 17 years – Girl refused for medico-legal examination in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.c. and stated that she willingly married to petitioner -- Prima facie, it is a case of consensual love -- Petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2020 -- Investigation is over and challan has been filed and trial is not likely to start or conclude anytime soon in view of current pandemic scenario – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 319, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B, 406 – Dowry death – Regular bail -- Custody since 25.07.2018 – Trial is likely to take some time -- An application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution for summoning the additional accused -- Covid-19 pandemic situation -- Courts are not working at full strength, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 285, 506, 147, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Once the co-accused have already been acquitted and the petitioner is not alleged to have played any active role, it would not be appropriate to further incarcerate the petitioner -- Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2019 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient time, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 188, 269, 270 -- Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 51 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20, 29 -- Accused in custody since 11.04.2020 -- Since the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as due to COVID-19 situation, Courts are not working at their full strength and not taking up regular hearing matters, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 336, 353, 186, 212, 216-A, 148/149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25/54 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No injury is attributed to the petitioner, he is 24 years of age, is in custody for over 01 year -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354, 354-A, 451, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Sexual assault to child – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 07.12.2019 -- 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 -- Petitioner is admitted to bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85 – Regular bail -- 85 injections of Avil and 85 injections of Buprenorphine each containing 2 ml. are stated to have been recovered from the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody for over one year and four months; he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Orders of the Coordinate Benches, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 506 – Unnatural offence – Penetrative sexual assault – Regular bail -- Two prosecution witnesses including the complainant have been examined but 09 PWs are yet to be examined – When, the petitioner is in custody for almost 07 months; he is not involved in any other case; the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Petitioner is granted concession of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Anticipatory bail – Three other cases -- 1.7 kg of Heroin recovered from co-accused – Petitioner was never apprehended at the spot and that the only evidence against him is in the shape of disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would be tested during the course of trial – For other three cases, he was never arrested at the spot and has been granted anticipatory bail – Petition is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.06.2020

Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Forgery and fabrication – Anticipatory bail -- Allegations that petitioner forged and fabricated the documents to avoid the tax liability -- All the documents are already in possession of the police -- Whether the petitioner had any role to play in the entire gamut or he has been made scapegoat, as alleged, can be ascertained once the petitioner joins the investigation vis a vis the documentary evidence already seized – Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.06.2020

Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22 -- Anticipatory bail – Co-accused was apprehended while in possession of 12 injections of Bupronorphine (2 ml each), 12 injections of Avil (10 ml each) and 50 grams of ‘Heroin’ -- Upon interrogation she disclosed that she had purchased the aforesaid contraband from the petitioner -- Since the petitioner was never arrested at the spot and no recovery was effected from him and he is nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, it will certainly be debatable as to whether the aforesaid disclosure statement would be admissible in evidence against the petitioner or not -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21,61,85 – Recovery of 400 grams of heroin – Custody since 12.08.2019 -- Regular bail -- FIR of 12.8.2019 do not give any time and place of apprehending the petitioner -- No independent person has been joined in the proceedings – Case property was produced before the Magistrate and the representative samples were drawn on 13.08.2019 and samples were ultimately sent to FSL only on 16.08.2019 -- Challan has been presented on 23.01.2020 -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case – Contended that according to instructions/notification No.1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the samples are required to be sent to FSL within 72 hours, the non-compliance would entail in grant of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage – Without adverting to the merits of the case, petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.06.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 -- Alprazolam recovered – Regular bail -- Alleged recovery from the petitioner is 110 grams of intoxicant material which is ultimately found to be Alprazolam as per report of FSL – Keeping in view the recovery of contraband which is marginally higher than the commercial quantity, petitioner enlarged on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.06.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 -- NDPS matter -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 1.1.2019 and the investigation is already complete and the charges have already been framed on 4.5.2019 and out of 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution none has been examined till date -- It is not the case of the prosecution that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail then he may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or he may repeat the offence -- Apart from that even the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with which may result in vitiating the trial itself and becomes a good ground for presuming that petitioner is not guilty and therefore, it would be certainly a fit case where departure can be made under the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.02.2020

Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 376(2)(n), 376D, 328, 506 – Gang Rape – Compromise -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix was offered for medical examination, but she has not come forward to undergo such medical examination – Petition so as to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise filed -- Prosecutrix is residing in the matrimonial home as she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner -- Though, the allegations in the FIR are serious but considering the fact that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and has not opted for medical examination, Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2020

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, Section 15, 25, 29 – NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Recovery of four bags containing 35 kgs. each of poppy-husk from co-accused -- Petitioner implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and there is no other material/evidence connecting him with his co-accused and the narcotic substances recovered -- Petitioner was not arrested from the spot and no recovery was made from him -- Rigors of Section 37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act are not applicable qua the petitioner and in any case the same stand satisfied by due implication – Trial against him is likely to take long time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.01.2020

Section 82 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender -- Order challenged after 4 years -- There may not be any reason to allow, however keeping in view the fact that the matter actually arises out of proceedings u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and petitioner undertakes to continue appearing before the trial Court on each and every date and also and a mother of two minor children (less than 10 years of age), impugned order set aside, upon the petitioner furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.10.2019

Section 421 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A – Cheque bounce case – Interim compensation -- Non-deposit of – It is nowhere, specifically provided in the Act that if the payment as ordered has not been deposited, the bail granted shall be liable to be consequently cancelled – Recovery can be made of such defaulted amount as if it is a fine under Section 421 Cr.P.C. -- During the trial of the case, the Court should not cancel the bail already granted on this ground alone.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 61, 85 – NDPS matter – 1.5 kg of Heroin -- Regular Bail – Custody since 21.01.2018 -- Indictment of the petitioner on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused -- Petitioner was not travelling in the said bus from where the alleged contraband was recovered from possession of co-accused -- Trial of the case is likely to take time – Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2019

Section 167(2), 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 – Default bail given – New sections/offences added – Anticipatory bail applied -- Petitioner was given benefit of bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. as challan was not presented against him – Main case of the prosecution remains the same regarding disproportionate assets – Held, if some other offences have been added in the FIR, even then, the petitioner is not required for further interrogation purposes etc. – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail in newly added Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.04.2019

Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Condition requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh), that too directly to the informant/complainant, is harsh and unacceptable -- Condition set aside -- Appellant must comply with other conditions specified in the impugned order for availing the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(SC) Decided on: 29.01.2019

Section 438 -- Cancellation of anticipatory bail – Opportunity of hearing – Requirement of – When the order was passed by the High Court, the appellants were not present either in person or through counsel – Order passed by the High Court set aside, matter remitted before the High Court to pass a fresh order after hearing the appellants on the application for cancellation of bail, in the interest of justice.

(SC) Decided on: 08.01.2019

Section 167(2), 173 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A(4) -- NDPS Matter – Investigation Report -- Chemical Examination Report – Default bail – Right of -- It is essential that the report of the Chemical Examiner be included in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and without which it can at best be termed to be an incomplete challan -- If it is not submitted within the requisite period of 180 days, it would essentially result in a default benefit to the accused unless an application is moved by the Investigating Agency apprising the Court of status of investigation with a prayer for extension of time to the satisfaction of the Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.11.2018

Section 441 -- Involvement in 31 cases – Bail by trial court -- Number of Sureties – Submission that the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties – Order modified to the extent that petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- and there shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- -- Court clarified that the personal bond so executed by the Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases.

(SC) Decided on: 29.10.2018

Section 438 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Proclaimed offender in cheque bounce case – Anticipatory bail -- Point for determination is whether the petitioner has been rightly declared proclaimed offender -- Otherwise also, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is bailable in nature -- Petitioner has already given an undertaking that he would submit to the process of law and would furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Direction given to the petitioner to appear before trial court and furnish bail bond has been complied with – Interim order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.04.2015

Regular bail -- NDPS case – Petitioner was carrying a black bag on his shoulder – Petitioner and co-accused arrested carrying 3 kilograms each of Opium – Petitioner cannot be denied bail merely on the ground that he belong to Bihar -- Moreover by offering the surety amount to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-, the apprehension of the petitioner absconding is met to an extent – Petitioner is behind bars for more than 1 ½ years -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case -- Story put forth by the prosecution gives an arguable issue to the petitioner -- Nothing on record to show that the concession of bail is likely to be misutilised -- Petitioner granted bail subject to furnishing surety/sureties to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.12.2020

Recovery of 70 strips of Clovidol (each strip containing 10 tablets) i.e. total 700 intoxicant tablets – NDPS case – Regular bail -- No other case pending or registered, petitioner in custody since 16.01.2020 -- Recovery effected marginally higher than commercial quantity -- Challan was presented on 10.07.2020, trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

Recovery of commercial quantity of 70 injections of Pheniramine Maleate 10 ml Avil and 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 2 ml each – NDPS case – Regular bail -- 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. Petitioner granted the concession of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

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 -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

Recovery of 950 intoxicating tablets -- NDPS case -- 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 – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Regular bail -- NDPS case – 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 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Regular bail -- NDPS case – 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 -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Recovery of 53.1 kg Poppy Straw -- NDPS Case -- Regular bail -- Marginally above the commercial quantity – Petitioner remained in detention for almost 07 months – Not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Charges have been framed, trial is likely to take its own considerable time due to ongoing Covid-19 Pandemic -- Regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Recovery of 350 grams intoxicant powder, having salt Diacetylmorphine – NDPS case -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Suspension of sentence pending appeal – NDPS case -- Conviction for R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1 lac – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Recovery of 650 tablets of Clovidol-100SR – NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Charge has been framed but no witness has been examined -- Marginally above the commercial quantity and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2020

Recovery of 1500 capsules of Ridlay Parvorin-Spas Tramadol -- NDPS case -- 15 witnesses to be examined, petitioner in custody for more than one year -- Keeping in view that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 400 strips of TREDOL-100 – NDPS case -- Petitioner in custody since 03.07.2019 – Out of 12 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date – Bail opposed on the ground that recovery from the petitioner is commercial in quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for concession of bail – Held, trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 400 strips of TREDOL-100 – NDPS case -- Petitioner in custody since 03.07.2019 – Out of 12 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date – Bail opposed on the ground that recovery from the petitioner is commercial in quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for concession of bail – Held, trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 980 loose intoxicant tablets containing salt of Alprazolam – NDPS case -- 5 grams above the commercial quantity – Keeping in view order granting concession of bail to the co-accused and the fact that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 255 gram of heroin – NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 13 months – Till date, no witness has been examined, the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and the recovery, which has been effected from the petitioner, is marginally above commercial quantity and no case pending -- Petitioner be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2020

Disclosure statement -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of heroin weighing 322 grams and 66 mili gram from two accused – Disclosure statement implicating the petitioner as the person from they borrowed the heroine -- Recovery of 53 grams 63 mili grams from petitioner -- Prima facie, due to inadmissibility of disclosure statements of co-accused in evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from his co-accused and Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act will not be applicable qua the petitioner – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Regular bail -- NDPS matter -- Petitioner is in custody since 1.1.2019 and the investigation is already complete and the charges have already been framed on 4.5.2019 and out of 11 witnesses cited by the prosecution none has been examined till date -- It is not the case of the prosecution that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail then he may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses or he may repeat the offence -- Apart from that even the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with which may result in vitiating the trial itself and becomes a good ground for presuming that petitioner is not guilty and therefore, it would be certainly a fit case where departure can be made under the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.02.2020

Recovery of four bags containing 35 kgs. each of poppy-husk from co-accused -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Petitioner implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and there is no other material/evidence connecting him with his co-accused and the narcotic substances recovered -- Petitioner was not arrested from the spot and no recovery was made from him -- Rigors of Section 37 (1)(b) of the NDPS Act are not applicable qua the petitioner and in any case the same stand satisfied by due implication – Trial against him is likely to take long time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.01.2020

Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since January, 2020 -- Challan filed -- Allegations against the petitioner is that he took money from the complainant to get him admission in MBBS -- If it is so, then the complainant too is equally indulging in the illegal activity -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Anticipatory bail in FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Subsequently, the petitioner had surrendered before the trial Court and, thereafter, he was released on bail by the trial Court in the main case – Petition allowed, petitioner granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.09.2020

Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Allegation that deceased committed suicide on receiving threats by petitioner -- Petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.01.2020; he is not involved in any other case; the trial is not proceeding due to Covid-19 situation and also in view of the fact that matter stands compromised -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.12.2020

Robbery and voluntary causing hurt while committing robbery – 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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

Gold snatching case -- Regular bail -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

POCSO case -- 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 -- Direction given to release the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

Second 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.09.2020

POCSO case -- Rape -- Regular bail – Love affair matter -- Compromise for marriage of petitioner and prosecutrix – Adjudication of question of guilt or innocence of the petitioner on the basis of evidence to be produced during trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19 -- Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Allegations that while victim’s parents were away, the accused/petitioner gained forcibly entry into her room and scuffled with her -- It is only when the victim called out to her sister that the accused ran away -- Petitioner was arrested on 29.05.2020 – Investigation in the case is complete and the challan already stands presented -- It is not a case of sexual assault – Compromise has since been effected with the intervention of the village elders – Petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2020

Run-away marriage – POCSO case -- Regular bail – Now victim has been residing at her matrimonial home -- Petitioner has been in custody since 06.6.2020 -- Trial will take time to conclude -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

POCSO matter -- Regular bail -- Investigation is already over and challan has also been filed -- Prosecutrix seems to have made complaint under the pressure of her parents, which led to registration of FIR in question -- Petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2020 -- Trial is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon on account of current pandemic conditions due to COVID-19 -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.08.2020

POCSO matter -- Rape case – Minor girl aged 15 years – Regular bail – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had left the house alongwith accused of her own and they had established physical relations with each other -- She also stated that she wanted to marry with accused -- Interim bail for a period of one month to perform marriage with the victim granted -- Marriage with the victim solemnised on 21.07.2020 -- Petitioners (Husband and brother-in-law) have been in custody since January, 2020, challan has already been presented -- Victim and her parents have given statements in favour of the petitioners -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Rape case – Regular bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2019 -- In the interest of both the sides, the matter has been compromised between the parties -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Gang Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has not come forward to undergo medical examination – Petition so as to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise filed -- Prosecutrix is residing in the matrimonial home as she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner -- Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2020

Cancellation of Default bail -- Bail granted u/s 167(2) Cr.P.c. could have been cancelled u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. -- Appellants to file regular bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. afresh, which may be considered on merits and be decided expeditiously.

(SC) Decided on: 20.11.2020

Challan without FSL -- Petitioner ought to be granted bail in any case since he has already remained in detention for more than 8½ months and there is no involvement in any other case under the NDPS Act, and on account of on-going Covid-19 Pandemic, the trial which could not commence is likely to take a considerable time in its completion -- Validity of Division Bench's decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121) cannot at this stage be said to be altogether beyond controversy, since the matter has now been referred for consideration afresh in view of the decision in Julfkar's case (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15385) which has subsequently been followed in the case of Rinku vs. State of Haryana (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15615) -- Criminal Revision allowed at this stage and the Petitioner is permitted to be conditionally released on bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court concerned. In case of any different result coming forth from that in the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of the order, if warranted at that stage.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Incomplete Investigation Report/ Challan -- NDPS case – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

Additional complaint -- NDPS case -- Appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2018, hence the mandatory period of 180 days prescribed for filing of final report u/s 167(2), CrPC (excluding the date of remand) was completed on 31.01.2019 – Appellant-accused had exercised his option to obtain bail by filing the application at 10:30 a.m. on the 181st day of his arrest, i.e., immediately after the court opened, on 01.02.2019 -- Public Prosecutor had not filed any application seeking extension of time to investigate into the crime prior to 31.01.2019 or prior to 10:30 a.m. on 01.02.2019 -- Public Prosecutor participated in the arguments on the bail application till 4:25 p.m. on the day it was filed -- It was only thereafter that the additional complaint came to be lodged against the Appellant – Held, appellant-accused was deemed to have availed of his indefeasible right to bail, the moment he filed an application for being released on bail and offered to abide by the terms and conditions of the bail order, i.e. at 10:30 a.m. on 01.02.2019 – Petitioner was held entitled to be released on bail notwithstanding the subsequent filing of an additional complaint.

(SC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Default bail – In common legal parlance, the right to bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) is commonly referred to as ‘default bail’ or ‘compulsive bail’ as it is granted on account of the default of the investigating agency in not completing the investigation within the prescribed time, irrespective of the merits of the case. Held, Once the accused files an application for bail u/s 167(2) he is deemed to have ‘availed of’ or enforced his right to be released on default bail, accruing after expiry of the stipulated time limit for investigation. Thus, if the accused applies for bail under Section 167(2), CrPC read with Section 36A (4), NDPS Act upon expiry of 180 days or the extended period, as the case may be, the Court must release him on bail forthwith without any unnecessary delay after getting necessary information from the public prosecutor, as mentioned supra. Such prompt action will restrict the prosecution from frustrating the legislative mandate to release the accused on bail in case of default by the investigative agency -- The right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application; or subsequent filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking extension of time by the prosecution before the Court; or filing of the chargesheet during the interregnum when challenge to the rejection of the bail application is pending before a higher Court -- However, where the accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues to him, and subsequently a chargesheet, additional complaint or a report seeking extension of time is preferred before the Magistrate, the right to default bail would be extinguished. The Magistrate would be at liberty to take cognizance of the case or grant further time for completion of the investigation, as the case may be, though the accused may still be released on bail under other provisions of the CrPC -- Notwithstanding the order of default bail passed by the Court, by virtue of Explanation I to Section 167(2), the actual release of the accused from custody is contingent on the directions passed by the competent Court granting bail. If the accused fails to furnish bail and/or comply with the terms and conditions of the bail order within the time stipulated by the Court, his continued detention in custody is valid.

(SC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Indefeasible right to bail -- NDPS case -- Appellant was remanded to judicial custody on 04.08.2018, hence the mandatory period of 180 days prescribed for filing of final report u/s 167(2), CrPC (excluding the date of remand) was completed on 31.01.2019 – Appellant-accused had exercised his option to obtain bail by filing the application at 10:30 a.m. on the 181st day of his arrest, i.e., immediately after the court opened, on 01.02.2019 -- Public Prosecutor had not filed any application seeking extension of time to investigate into the crime prior to 31.01.2019 or prior to 10:30 a.m. on 01.02.2019 -- Public Prosecutor participated in the arguments on the bail application till 4:25 p.m. on the day it was filed -- It was only thereafter that the additional complaint came to be lodged against the Appellant – Held, appellant-accused was deemed to have availed of his indefeasible right to bail, the moment he filed an application for being released on bail and offered to abide by the terms and conditions of the bail order, i.e. at 10:30 a.m. on 01.02.2019 – Petitioner was held entitled to be released on bail notwithstanding the subsequent filing of an additional complaint.

(SC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Harsh conditions -- Condition directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned is unsustainable, as it is too harsh -- Instead, condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail – Condition modified by Supreme Court.

(SC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Harsh conditions -- Condition directing the appellant to report before the concerned police station daily at 10:00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation is concerned is unsustainable, as it is too harsh -- Instead, condition which can be imposed is directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigating officer in completing the investigation and to remain present before the concerned police station for investigation/interrogation as and when called for, and on breach the investigating officer can approach the concerned court for cancellation of the bail – Condition modified by Supreme Court.

(SC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Challan filed before submitting bail bonds – 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 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.09.2020

Incomplete challan -- NDPS case – Challan without report of the Chemical Examiner/Forensic Science Laboratory -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2020

Delay in furnishing bail bonds – Effect of -- Mere delay in furnishing personal bail bonds/surety cannot visit the petitioner with adverse consequences and the order granting bail u/s 167(2) of the Code does not cease to exist or comes to an end or stand eclipsed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.07.2020

Accused on interim Bail – Effect of -- Petitioner remaining behind bars for a period of less than two weeks till date cannot cry foul and ask for bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Dismissal of default bail application -- Petitioner not arrested kept in Column no. 2 -- Evidence necessary for commencement of trial collected by the investigating agency -- Warrants of arrest had been requested for – Held, it is not essential for a person to be arrested before a challan can be presented against him -- Only requirement for applicability of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is that investigation should be pending against the petitioner -- Trial Court dismissed the application for default bail – No merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2020

Indefeasible right to bail -- Language of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is clear -- If a challan is not presented within the said period, the accused gets an indefeasible right to bail which cannot be defeated by filing the challan after 90 days but before the release of an accused on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2020

Period of challan to be reckoned -- It is now settled that the word ‘custody’ occurring in the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. encompasses police custody as well as judicial custody.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2020

Covid-19 restriction – Effect of -- Neither eclipsed the time prescribed u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed.

(SC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

New sections/offences added – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was given benefit of bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. as challan was not presented against him – Main case of the prosecution remains the same regarding disproportionate assets – Held, if some other offences have been added in the FIR, even then, the petitioner is not required for further interrogation purposes etc. – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail in newly added Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.04.2019

Incomplete Investigation Report/ Challan -- NDPS Matter – Chemical Examination Report – It is essential that the report of the Chemical Examiner be included in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and without which it can at best be termed to be an incomplete challan -- If it is not submitted within the requisite period of 180 days, it would essentially result in a default benefit to the accused unless an application is moved by the Investigating Agency apprising the Court of status of investigation with a prayer for extension of time to the satisfaction of the Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.11.2018

Anticipatory bail – Law is well settled that where a process is “ex debito justitiae” the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Permissibility of – Default bail – Held, only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail u/s 167(2), Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, as the case may be -- And within 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail -- Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. -- Condition imposed by the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Condition quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Recovery of 255 grams of 'heroin' from dash board of vehicle – NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Whether it will be conscious possession of passenger – It will be debatable as to whether the petitioners can be attributed conscious possession -- Petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 7 months -- Petitioners ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Recovery of 193 kg of Poppy husk recovered – NDPS case – Regular bail -- 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 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

Recovery of 7600 intoxicating tablets -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Petitioners are in custody since 25.08.2019 -- FIR is based on secret information, thus, culpability, conscious possession of which accused if any, would be determined at the time of trial -- Court deemed it to allow the regular bail to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Recovery of 55 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules (total 1320 in number) and 14 plastic vials of Corex Syrup -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Petitioner was not arrested on the spot, there is no question of effecting any recovery of contraband from his conscious possession – Petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2019 -- Disclosure statement of the co-accused is not sufficient enough to establish the petitioner's culpability satisfactorily -- Petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases, however, there is no mention of the petitioner being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Recovery of heroin weighing 322 grams and 66 mili gram from two accused – NDPS matter – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Disclosure statement implicating the petitioner as the person from they borrowed the heroine -- Recovery of 53 grams 63 mili grams from petitioner -- Prima facie, due to inadmissibility of disclosure statements of co-accused in evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of heroin allegedly recovered from his co-accused -- Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act will not be applicable qua the petitioner – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Kidnapping – Suspension of sentence pending appeal -- Appellants facilitating procurement of Sim Card – 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.

(SC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Parity -- High Court proceeded to grant bail to the respondent No. 2 only for the reason that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail -- Order granting bail to the co-accused met with its strong disapproval by Supreme Court – High Court granted bail to the co-accused while ignoring the relevant considerations and with a mere reference to the mandate of Article 21 -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Article 226 -- Parole – Criminal writ petition -- On earlier parole, petitioner surrendered back on time and was not involved in any criminal activity – Present parole rejected -- It is disturbing that once a particular set of reasons have been specifically rejected by Court, the SSP has mentioned same reasons again -- 6 weeks' parole granted to the petitioner -- Respondent No.4 to file personal affidavit as to why identically same reasons were stated when first set of reasons had been rejected by High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2021

Article 226 -- Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3, 4 – Parole – Rejection of – Speaking order – Requirement of -- Impugned order rejecting parole merely states that in case prisoner is released on parole, he might help smugglers and there is threat to peace and security of the State – Held said order is non-speaking in nature – Order set aside and case remitted to the same authority for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties -- Petitioner shall be at liberty to cite judgments he seeks to place reliance upon.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2021

Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Interim protection -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Interim protection given in the anticipatory bail applications by the High Court or Court of Sessions for a limited period, which is likely to expire from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th of June, 2021 -- However, any party aggrieved by the conduct of the accused on such interim protection, may move the Court over the matter for discontinuation of such interim protection, if any prejudice is caused to him/her, in which event, the Court concerned shall be entitled to take independent view of the matter.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Interim bail -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – All the interim bails granted under Section 439, Cr.P.C. by the High Court or Courts of Sessions, limited by timeframe specifying an expiry date from now up to 30th June, 2021, shall stand extended till 30th June, 2021, subject to the accused not abusing such liberty or else it may be cancelled at the instance of the State or the complainant, on application with adequate proof of the abuse of the liberty so granted by the Court concerned.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41A -- Cognizable offence – Arrest in -- Covid 19 pandemic situation -- Directions issued in suo motu PIL – Unless there is necessity of arrest for maintenance of law and order or any other emergent case, in a cognizable offence prescribing sentence up to seven years imprisonment, the police shall desist from arresting the accused up to 30th of June, 2021, without complying with the provision of Section 41A, Cr.P.C. -- This however may not be understood as an interdict on the power of the police to arrest, but should only be considered a mere advisory in the face of the ongoing crisis following second wave of Coronavirus.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.04.2021

Article 226 -- Parole – Marriage of relative – Conviction in NDPS case – Relative whose marriage is statedly fixed is not very closely related to the petitioner, Court not inclined to pass any order to allow emergency parole -- However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner ordered to be sent to the venue of the marriage in custody.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Article 226, 227 – Parole – Sickness of mother -- Habitual offender – Petitioner involved in other cases -- Medical history of the mother of the petitioner indicates that she is a chronic patient of liver disease and jaundice and was also diagnosed as case of severe urinary track infection -- Taking into account seriousness of disease, the Doctor has suggested good family care and treatment to save her life -- Petitioner granted eight weeks parole.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.02.2021

Suspension of sentence -- POCSO matter -- Rape with minor – 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 -- Further sentence of applicant-appellant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Gang rape case -- Suspension of sentence -- 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 -- Sentence of applicant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Suspension of sentence -- Appellant is confined in jail from 15.12.2016 onwards and father of the appellant was diagnosed with pancolitis – Appeal pending before the High Court – Without going into the merits of the matter, considering the submissions and other material placed on record and further taking into account that the appellant is in jail since 15.12.2016, sentence suspended.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Default bail – Neither eclipsed the time prescribed u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed.

(SC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Dispute has traits of a civil dispute -- Anticipatory bail -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Anticipatory bail -- All the offences except the offence under Section 506 IPC, alleged against the petitioners are bailable -- Petitioners are granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2020

Right of private defence – Regular bail – Debatable question as to whether the petitioner legitimately exercised right of private defence or exceeded the same is involved and the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19, Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Murder -- Regular bail – Gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest -- Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves, do not make out a case for grant of bail – Respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or improbable – Bail by High Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Regular bail – Parity with co-accused -- Co-accused suffered disclosure statement, wherein he named the petitioner -- Custody since 20.09.2020, challan already stand presented -- Co-accused, who nominated the petitioner have already been granted concession of regular bail alongwith one more co-accused – Purely on the parity with co-accused, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Disclosure statement -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was later on, nominated in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused – Petitioner has undergone the custody of 04 months and 15 days -- Considering the fact that challan stands presented; the petitioner is not involved in any other case; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Disclosure statement -- 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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Disclosure statement -- Regular bail -- No other evidence against the petitioner as on date except the statement of the co-accused which cannot be read against him -- Similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail – Petition allowed, petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2020

Compromise between the parties – Regular bail – Seeing the nature of accusation against the petitioners and also the fact that trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of Covid-19 concession of regular bail extended to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Affidavit of non-involvement -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was granted interim bail and joined the Investigation -- Complainant had also filed an affidavit that the petitioner was not involved – Petition allowed – Interim bail order made absolute.

(SC) Decided on: 28.01.2019

Regular bail -- Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence -- Petitioner in custody since 17.07.2015 and has been inculpated on the statement of the co-accused -- Chilli powder recovered from the petitioner -- Truck, of which the deceased were driver and conductor, was recovered from other co-accused, as was the weapon of offence – No allegation that the petitioner is likely to abscond or influence witnesses -- Due to outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19 trial is not likely to be concluded in near future -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated any longer – Petitioner be released on bail pending trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Recovery of 206 grams of opium from co-accused – Disclosure that he sold 250 grams of opium to petitioner – Only on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner is sought to be roped in – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Theft in dwelling house – Anticipatory bail – Only on the basis of disclosure statement by some of the apprehended persons / accused, the petitioner has been roped in – No recovery has been made from the petitioner, he is not involved in any other case – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Regular bail -- Total 120 bottles of liquor were recovered from the WagonR belonging to petitioner KS and 480 bottles of 750 ml each were recovered from the car belonging to the petitioner S@G -- Liquor, purchased by the petitioners from Chandigarh for onward sale in Ludhiana – Petitioners are in custody since 01.05.2022 and investigation is already complete and maximum prescribed sentence is three years -- Petitioners admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.06.2022

Regular bail -- Petitioner is approximately 18 years whereas the age of prosecutrix is 28 years, who is also the paternal aunt of the petitioner – Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2021 and is in custody since then – Main witness has already been examined whereas nine other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and the petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2021, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.06.2022

Hostile prosecutrix -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 09.08.2019 -- Prosecutrix has denied the fact that the petitioner established physical relations with her -- Prosecutrix was got declared hostile by the prosecution – It would not be appropriate to further continue to incarcerate the petitioner – Conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2020

Section 392, 397, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Robbery – Regular bail -- Without commenting anything as regards merits of the case, but while noticing that the petitioner behind bars since the last about 7 months and otherwise has a clean record and that none of the cited 9 PWs has been examined till date, further detention of the petitioner would not be justified – Petition accepted, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder -- Regular bail – Custody period – Relevancy of -- Gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest -- Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves, do not make out a case for grant of bail – Respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or improbable – Bail by High Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Sections 341, 342, 376(D) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(4)(w)(i) – POCSO matter – Regular bail – Ad-interim compensation as a ground -- High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(SC) Decided on : 09.09.2022

Section 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Agreement to sell could not fructify into sale deed and in subsequent negotiations, four cheques totalling a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs were handed over to the complainant -- Cheques dishonoured, complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act filed -- Thereafter FIR u/s 420, 120B IPC – Petition for pre-arrest bail allowed.

(SC) Decided on: 16.08.2022

Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner -- General and oblivious allegations of causing injuries to the complainant – Even the injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body and the weapons claimed to have been used in the occurrence are blunt weapons – Further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2022 – No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and her continued incarceration in judicial custody is not likely to advance any interest of justice – Petition allowed and the petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.06.2022

Sections 380, 457 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Theft in dwelling house – Anticipatory bail -- Lock of inner door of house was broken and theft of LCD, Gas Cylinder, stove, gold ornaments, utensils and cash occurred – Only on the basis of disclosure statement by some of the apprehended persons / accused, the petitioner has been roped in – No recovery has been made from the petitioner, he is not involved in any other case – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Sections 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 302 and 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Unlawful assembly -- Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner either on the person of the deceased or on the person of any of the injured -- Recovery of motor cycle has been shown from him -- Therefore, it would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether the petitioner could be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC – Petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2021 and the investigation already stands completed, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.06.2022

Sections 342, 365, 395, 397, 506, 412 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity case – Regular bail – Parity with co-accused -- Truck was looted, a mobile phone and Rs.7,000/- in cash were snatched from complainant – Complainant was taken to a place after blindfolding him and was later on released -- Co-accused suffered disclosure statement, wherein he named the present petitioner -- Custody since 20.09.2020, challan already stand presented -- Co-accused, who nominated the petitioner have already been granted concession of regular bail alongwith one more co-accused – Purely on the parity with co-accused, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Sections 302, 201, 384, 365, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Occurrence is of 16.08.2017 and the postmortem conducted on 05.09.2017 – As per the medical evidence “the death could have occurred 5 to 6 weeks prior to the postmortem examination” – As per the statement of PW-8, no cause of death could be ascertained in the case – Petitioner is behind the bars since 03.09.2017 and there is no other case pending against him -- Case is based on circumstantial evidence – Even on 25.08.2020 when the co-accused granted regular bail, it was contended that out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, 19 have already been examined – Regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2022

Sections 120-B, 376-D, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Gang rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner is approximately 18 years whereas the age of prosecutrix is 28 years, who is also the paternal aunt of the petitioner – Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2021 and is in custody since then – Main witness has already been examined whereas nine other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and the petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2021, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.06.2022

Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 120-B, 376 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 446A -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented and even his bail bonds have not been cancelled or forfeited to the State -- Keeping in view that there is only a single date default, petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court within ten days from today and on his doing so he shall be released on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Sections 376(2)(n), 450, 452, 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Complicity of the petitioner in the offence would remain subject matter of debate before the Trial Court and the petitioner, who is in custody for the last more than 10 months would be entitled to be released on bail as 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Without delving into the merits or demerits, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating by agreement to sell – Civil suit pending – Regular bail – Primary allegations against the petitioner are that he along with 3 co-accused have prepared an agreement to sell vide which the complainant has allegedly agreed to sell the property in favour of the petitioner – Said agreement to sell is already subject matter of civil suit – Considering the fact that prior to registration of the present FIR, the matter was already subjudice before the Civil Court, the petition allowed -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.12.2020

Section 379-B, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Snatching of mobile phone – Regular bail – Submission that it remained unexplained as to from which sources, the complainant came to know about the names of the persons, who had allegedly snatched his mobile phone – Petitioners remained behind bars for about 3 months – Challan already stands presented – Interim directions pertaining to grant of interim bail made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.12.2020

Section 473 IPC – 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 -- 45 boxes of country made liquor were recovered from a car and co-accused was arrested at the spot -- Petitioner is not the owner of the car – Other co-accused was arrested later and stated that he was to hand over liquor to the petitioner – On direction petitioner joined investigation, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.12.2020

Section 302, 201, 120-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail – Petitioner in judicial custody since November, 2018 -- Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the co-accused of the petitioner is on bail -- Out of total fifteen prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far -- Trial is likely to consume considerable time to conclude in the wake of outbreak of pandemic-COVID-19 – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Sections 307, 323, 324, 326, 379, 382, 148, 149, 201 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Proclamation order – Challenge to – Bail to petitioner – Right of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested -- Petition disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court within 10 days -- On doing so, petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Sections 307, 458, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 (Sections 325/326 IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Lalkara -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is attributed a 'lalkara' only although the other co-accused are alleged to have caused injuries – Interim bail given, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and even challan has been presented to Court – Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.12.2020

Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abetment to suicide – Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Allegation that deceased committed suicide on receiving threats by petitioner -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.01.2020; he is not involved in any other case; the trial is not proceeding due to Covid-19 situation and also in view of the fact that matter stands compromised between the complainant and petitioner, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.12.2020

Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Injury attracting the mischief of Section 307 IPC has not been attributed to either of the petitioners – Fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19 -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Section 148, 149, 323, 307, 325, 341, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has given a Jaily blow on the leg of victim, which is declared to be a simple injury and the injury, invoking Section 307 IPC, is attributed to co-accused, who was having an axe -- Petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail and direction given to join the investigation -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required for further investigation in the case – Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Sections 307, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody for more than two months -- Trial is likely to take a long time to conclude -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non vital part -- Thus, it is a debatable question as to whether the said injury would entail the offence u/s 307 IPC, and the same can only be determined on the basis of evidence during trial -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Sections 307, 34, 365, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail – As many as 13 injuries were found on the person of the injured -- However, all the said injuries are virtually on non-vital parts inasmuch as the receipt of the said injuries are either on shoulders, arms, legs, knees or hands -- Even the three injuries classified as ‘grievous’ injuries are on non-vital parts -- Nothing to suggest that any of the injuries had been caused by running over the car on the injured -- Petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 6 months and 5 months respectively and challan already stands presented -- Petitioners ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Section 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case -- Run-away marriage with minor -- Victim had left the house of her own and gone to Bihar with co-accused, where they had performed the marriage -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that she had allured the victim, who is a minor girl -- Petitioner, who is having a minor child, has been in custody since 14.08.2020 -- No witness has been examined so far -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Section 379, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) -- Agreement to sell – Civil nature dispute – Anticipatory bail by Ld. Addl. Session Judge -- Cancellation of -- Main dispute between the parties is regarding breach of an agreement to sell and it is based on documentary evidence -- Dispute is purely of civil nature – Allegations and counter-allegations levelled by both the parties against each other can only be proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence -- Court found no ground to cancel the bail -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.12.2020

Sections 363, 366-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping – Regular bail -- Victim 17 year old taken away on the pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix has exonerated the petitioner in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- She has refused to get herself medically examined -- Challan has been presented -- Charges have also been framed, but no prosecution witness has been examined 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.12.2020

Section 302, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail – It will be debatable as to whether it is a case of suicide or murder – In any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 1 year and happens to be a cousin of husband of the deceased and maintaining a separate house and mess, though in adjacent premises, and is not stated to be involved in any other case, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2020

Section 498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Recovery of dowry article – Requirement of -- Bail opposed by complainant on the ground that recovery of the dowry articles is yet to be effected -- Submission is totally misplaced and misconceived, case pertains to the offence u/s 498-A IPC and is not u/s 406 IPC where the entrustment of articles is mandatorily required to be made to the person, by whom, it is misappropriated – Petitioner has joined the Investigation, no more required for further Investigation -- Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.12.2020

Sections 302, 341, 120-B, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 29 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 94 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 57, 167, 438 -- Murder case -- Anticipatory bail – Interim bail -- Juvenile-petitioner’s reliance upon birth certificate and matriculation certificate -- Without commenting anything as regards the genuineness of the documents, petition disposed of with the directions: (i) The petitioner to surrender before the Juvenile Justice Board within 10 days and upon the petitioner so surrendering, the Juvenile Justice Board shall release the petitioner on interim bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Board. (ii) The Board shall conduct an inquiry as regards the juvenility of the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to be juvenile, the Board shall consider his release under Section 12 of the Act and pass an appropriate order. (iii) The petitioner to be present before the Board on the day his bail application is to be heard and on the day when the order on his bail application is to be pronounced or on any other day as directed by Board. (iv) If the Board, upon inquiry regarding age comes to conclusion that the petitioner is not a juvenile, he shall be produced before Illaqa Magistrate who shall proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Board on all the dates unless specifically exempted. (v) The interim bail shall come to an end if petitioner is not found to be juvenile or in case his application is dismissed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2020

Sections 376(2)(f), 376(3) – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 6 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Rape with minor cousin sister – Bail to juvenile -- Prosecutrix was residing in house of petitioner being brought up by his mother -- Prosecutrix entire statement recorded – Petitioner was aged about 15 years when the FIR was lodged still continues to be a juvenile -- By now, he has already remained in Safe Custody for more than one year and one and a half months – His further detention there would not appear to be in his overall interest due to the fact that there are likely to be more juveniles in conflict with law, housed in the same premises -- Prosecutrix has already been shifted from the parental house of the petitioner -- No reason to deny petitioner the opportunity of coming back to the custody of his parents -- Trial is likely to take its own substantial time, particularly on account of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic -- Revision petition allowed -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2020

Sections 323, 354-B, 452, 506, 34 IPC – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 10 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Disrobe the woman/minor – POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail – There is dispute between two families resulting in registration of two FIR's, taking the allegations in the FIR on its prima facie value, the serious allegations are only against accused S and R, interim bail granted -- Petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and joined the investigation and he is no more required for further investigation -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.11.2020

Sections 354-D, 506 – Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67(A) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Stalking – Regular bail – Petitioner sent obscene messages to complainant – FIR registered after six months of occurrence -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is in judicial custody for the last about five months and also in view of the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.11.2020

Sections 302, 201, 202, 392, 396, 404, 412, 120-B – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity with murder – Regular bail on parity with co-accused -- Petitioner has undergone more than 05 years of incarceration -- Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner – Case fixed for recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C -- Keeping in view the total custody period of the petitioner without meaning anything on the merits of the case and the situation arising out of pandemic COVID-19, Court deemed appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail at par with other co-accused who have already been granted regular bail -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Section 304-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dowry death case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone 1 year, 4 months and 12 days of custody and there is no other case pending against her – Medical evidence on record is in favour of the prosecution -- Death appears to have been caused by throttling which implies use of external force -- Moreover, prima facie, harassment on account of dowry has been established -- Death has taken place within one year and five months of marriage – Not a case of false implication -- It is not a case of inordinate delay -- Petition has no merit and dismissed at this stage.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341, 506, 427, 34 IPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Grievous hurt -- Anticipatory bail -- Offence u/s 307 IPC deleted and in its place, offence u/s 326 IPC added -- Main accused were arrested and lateron, released on regular bail by the Court -- Petitioner was unarmed, only fist blows are attributed to him and he also damaged the motorcycle of the complainant – Interim bail granted to join the Investigaiton – Petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of IO and he is no more required in further investigation of the case -- Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 427, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Grievous hurt – Anticipatory bail -- Offence u/s 307 IPC deleted and offence u/s 326 IPC added -- No grievous injury attributed to the petitioner – On interim direction, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer and she is no more required in further investigation of the case – Interim order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Sections 353, 186, 324, 326, 332, 333 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Grievous hurt – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was arrested and then released on regular bail -- Subsequently, offences under Section 326, 333 IPC had been added -- It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner has misused the concession of regular bail in any way -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required -- Petition accepted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Sections 395 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dacoity case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was later on, nominated in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused – Petitioner has undergone the custody of 04 months and 15 days -- Considering the fact that challan stands presented; the petitioner is not involved in any other case; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.11.2020

Sections 147, 149, 323, 302, 506, 188, 216 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR wherein several persons have been named, she is stated to be armed with 'danda' and present at the place of occurrence, no specific injury has been attributed to her, she is 37 year old lady with two minor children, is in custody for almost 05 months, is not involved in any other criminal case -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Section 302, 303, 212, 201, 387, 120-B, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 29, 54, 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner in prison for more than 1 year and 2 months -- Trial is yet to commence inasmuch as even the charges have not been framed and no less than 71 witnesses have been cited on behalf of the Prosecution Side -- Trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude in view of the on-going Covid-19 Pandemic -- Further detention of the Petitioner for an indefinite period is not justified -- As such, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Sections 323, 376(2n), 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case -- Relation on pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix already married – Regular bail -- Petitioner was already married -- Prosecutrix was married and staying with GC (the elder brother of her deceased husband) -- Unless the prosecutrix proves that she has taken divorce from GC, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage – Petitioner in custody since 31.08.2020 and the parties being mature enough to understand the implications of such like relationship and trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Sections 406, 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Civil nature dispute -- Non-sharing of profits – Case of civil nature as dispute between the parties relate to the non sharing of the profit or loss of the partnership firm concretized between them -- Dispute has arisen relating to the payment of the amount so invested and non-sharing of the profits -- Considering the civil clippings of the disputes, without dilating further on merits of the case, Court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Section 188 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Recovery of 255 grams of 'heroin' from dash board of vehicle – Whether it will be conscious possession of passenger – It will be debatable as to whether the petitioners can be attributed conscious possession as normally it would be the owner or driver of the vehicle, who would be said to be having domain over the articles being carried in the vehicle, unless there is other evidence to show the complicity of the other passengers in the said vehicle – In any case, since the petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 7 months, their further detention will not serve any useful purpose -- Petitions accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Sections 120-B, 302, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 54, 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that petitioner is not involved in any other case and complainant has died prior to conducting his cross-examination and also in view of the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.08.2018, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Sections 323, 354, 376, 406, 498-A, 506, 511 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape case – Anticipatory bail -- Allegation that when the complainant was present in her room, the petitioner forcibly entered into her room and caught hold of her from the backside and started imposing himself with a bad intention and also started pressing her breasts – Superintendent of Police, was directed to file a specific affidavit as to how the present FIR has been registered u/s 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC keeping in view the allegations in the FIR – As per the statement of the victim and medical report, no case u/s 376 IPC is made out and the same stands deleted and Section 354 IPC has been added subsequently -- Petition allowed, interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Sections 363, 366-A, 343, 506, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 – Gang rape with minor – Regular bail -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.12.2019 and the victim and her father/complainant have not supported the version of the prosecution, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Section 364, 302, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Murder case – Anticipatory bail -- While noticing that It is not a case where any injury is alleged to have been caused to the deceased, petitioner is stated to have joined investigation and is fully cooperating with the police, the petition merits acceptance -- Petition accepted and the interim directions made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Sections 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Huge loss to State ex-chequer – Regular bail -- Right of -- It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period -- No doubt, the offence alleged against the accused is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter the Court from enlarging the accused on bail when there is no serious contention of the State that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence -- Petitioner in judicial custody since 07.09.2020 and is not required for any further investigation of the case -- Offences are triable by the Magistrate – Without adverting to the merits of the case and in view of the situation arising out due to COVID-19 pandemic, Court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2012(1) SCC 40 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.11.2020

Section 379, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) -- Agreement to sell – Civil nature dispute – Anticipatory bail by Ld. Addl. Session Judge -- Cancellation of -- Main dispute between the parties is regarding breach of an agreement to sell and it is based on documentary evidence -- Dispute is purely of civil nature – Allegations and counter-allegations levelled by both the parties against each other can only be proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence -- Court found no ground to cancel the bail -- Petition dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.11.2020

Sections 392, 394, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.11.2020

Section 188, 269 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(c), 29 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 24, 25, 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Sections 342, 346, 365 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 17 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Section 379-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 302, 307, 447, 506, 511, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

Sections 302/120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

Sections 365, 120-B, 201, 302, 34, 364-A, 404 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Section 304-B read with Section 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Sections 323, 341, 148, 149, 342, 379-B, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

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 – Dacoity case -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Sections 376-D, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Sections 302, 201, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.11.2020

Sections 302, 342, 364, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

Section 376, 342, 506, 120-B – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

Sections 148, 149, 323, 308, 325, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2020

Sections 307, 120-B, 148, 149, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

Sections 420, 489-A, 489-B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Sections 406, 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Section 376-D, 377 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Section 304 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Parity with co-accused -- Another co-accused was granted bail – State has failed to draw the attention of the Court to any distinguishing features except that the petitioner is involved in 7 more cases, out of which 3 are under NDPS Act, 1985 – Held, present case is required to be decided on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution -- A coordinate Bench has already considered the aforesaid facts, while granting the concession of bail -- Petitioner also ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 304-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dowry death case – Regular bail of parents-in-law -- Petitioners in custody since 25.03.2020, investigation is complete as the challan has already been presented – Husband of the deceased is still in custody and the petitioners herein are willing to give an undertaking that they will look after the minor girls, who are currently residing with their daughters -- In order to ensure the welfare and wellbeing of the minor girls, it was directed that the petitioners will file an undertaking before the trial court that they will take care of their wellbeing, education and day-to-day needs etc. and they will furnish FDRs in the name of the minor girls of Rs. 5 lacs each, which will not be encashed till the minor girls attain the majority -- Petition allowed, petitioners directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 304-B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 – Dowry death case – Regular bail -- Petitioner/ husband in custody for about two years -- As against total 21 witnesses only 01 witness has been examined so far -- Moreover, the prosecution has moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C., so as to summon sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased -- In this manner, trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future as the application filed u/s 319 Cr.P.C., is pending consideration before the trial court – Court deemed it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Abetment to suicide -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and recovery has been effected -- Affidavit of the complainant has also been filed recalling the earlier allegations – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Sections 363, 366-A -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 12 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO case -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has refused to go through the medical examination -- In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she denied of any allegation of physical relation -- Petition for regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Sections 365, 392, 395, 506, 148, 149 IPC – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Dacoity case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was granted interim bail and joined the Investigation -- Complainant had also filed an affidavit that the petitioner was not involved – Petition allowed – Interim bail order made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 420 -- Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (Punjab Act 2 of 2013), Section 13 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Second bail application for anticipatory bail -- Petitioner alleged to have received a sum of Rs.9 lacs, in order to help the first informant’s son to immigrate to Canada -- First informant and the petitioner have settled the matter not disputed by first informant – Arrest of the petitioner stayed subject to the petitioner joining investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer -- Petitioner shall be bound by the conditions as envisaged under 438 Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2020

Section 34, 452, 307, 323, 324, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner alongwith some other persons had attacked son of the complainant and the role attributed to the petitioner was datar blow on the left thumb of the victim -- Interim protection was granted to the petitioner and joined investigation and has co-operated with the investigation process and the recovery has already been made – He is no longer required for custodial investigation -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Sections 377, 388, 389, 109, 115, 116, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Unnatural offence – Co-accused granted bail – Right of similarly situated co-accused -- Same benefit cannot be declined to the petitioner unless and until certain differentiating facts are brought to the notice between the petitioner and the said co-accused -- As no differentiating fact has been brought to the notice, therefore the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Section 323, 325, 341, 452, 458, 459, 506, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Injuries are attributed to the other accused -- Concession of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners for the reason that they are ladies and they have not been attributed any injury on the vital part of the two victims – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.10.2020

Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)D, 13(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Challan presented and even the FIR was registered after holding a preliminary enquiry -- Petitioner is already a retired employee and hence, cannot temper with any record, which is already in the possession of the police -- No useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further as the trial is likely to take some time -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of benefit of regular bail -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.10.2020

Section 376(D), 376, 511, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 – Rape case -- Interim bail on medical ground by High Court – No satisfaction recorded by the High Court that treatment offered to respondent/accused was not adequate and he requires any further treatment by any particular medical institute for which it is necessary to release the respondent on interim bail on medical grounds -- Even as on date, due medical care is being taken of the respondent/accused -- High Court, without considering the entire materials on record, has passed the impugned order, which is unsustainable – Appeal allowed, order granting interim bail set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 307, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail – Names of the petitioner(s) does not find mentioned in the FIR and their names have been mentioned in supplement statement, it is a case of no injury and firing of two gun shots have not been attributed to the petitioner(s) – Interim bail granted with a direction to join the investigation -- Factual position not disputed, though petitioners have joined the investigation but the weapon has not been recovered -- Sufficient exceptional circumstances are made out to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners – Interim bail order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Section 306, 304-B, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dowry death case – FIR u/s 306/34 IPC – Charges framed u/s 304-B and alternative Section 302 IPC – Regular bail -- Investigation in the case is complete and challan has been presented – Petitioner has three children i.e two daughters and one son -- Petitioner being in custody, there is no one to look after the minor children who are exposed to the probability of being infected with the Covid-19 virus -- It has been medically proven that children of that age are more susceptible to get infected due to their lower level of immunity and therefore, they need 24x7 constant care and attention -- As regards allegations, the same can only be adjudicated in the course of trial, which is not likely to commence or conclude any time soon due to Covid-19 pandemic -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.10.2020

Section 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 483 & 120-B IPC – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Nine vehicles financed by co-accused – Non-payment of instalments -- Regular bail – Petitioner purchased two vehicles -- Fake documents for registration -- Case is triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class -- Petitioner is in custody since 12.08.2020 -- One of the main accused, has already been released on bail on 20.07.2019 -- Still further, the petitioner herein is neither a borrower nor a guarantor – Direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.10.2020

Section 420, 406, 120-B, 384, 370 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 – Anticipatory bail -- Delay of over two years in registering the FIR -- Co-accused were paid money through bank transactions while the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash for sending the son of the complainant abroad -- Matter had earlier been compromised on 30.12.2018 -- Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case – Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he was ordered to be released on ad-interim bail – Although, petitioner has joined investigation but recovery of the money has to be effected – In view of the submission and Covid-19 situation, interim bail granted to the petitioner is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.10.2020

Section 304 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Culpable homicide -- Right of private defence – Regular bail – In view of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and evidence against the petitioner, the fact that debatable question as to whether the petitioner legitimately exercised right of private defence or exceeded the same is involved and the fact that the trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19, Court extended the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.10.2020

Sections 376, 34 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3, 4 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Crime against child – Rape case – Regular bail -- Exception has been carved out for declining the bail to the juvenile who is in conflict with law i.e. he or she is likely to come in association with any known criminal or upon release on bail would expose such juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger or that release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice -- For invoking such exception, there has to be some material before the competent authority -- Impugned orders completely bereft of any such reasoning -- No such material/evidence has been adverted to in the order – Revision petition allowed, impugned orders of both the Courts below set aside -- Petitioner is held entitled to grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Sections 379-B, 120-B, 201, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Beating and snatching – Regular bail -- Petitioner was named in the disclosure statement and recovery of Rs.15,000/- was made from him -- No case pending against the petitioner -- Challan has been presented and charges framed but no witnesses have been examined -- Considering that during the pendency of the trial, the general rule is bail and not jail, investigation is complete, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time -- Emerging of the name of the petitioner in the disclosure statement made to the police itself makes prima facie arguable issue for the petitioner -- Petitioner is granted bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Section 379-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching of mobile and cash – Regular bail -- A mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner on the basis of his disclosure statement and nothing remains to be recovered from him -- Challan has been presented and no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioner in custody -- Moreover, conclusion of the trial will take some time keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation – Appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.10.2020

Sections 34, 363, 366, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3 and 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape and kidnapping of girl-child – Regular bail -- Petitioner was not initially named as an accused in the FIR -- Implicated only upon the disclosure statement of the named accused – Case of the complainant was that her daughter had been enticed away by the named accused on the pretext of marriage -- Complainant did not name the petitioner as being involved -- Victim girl did not even mention the petitioner's name in her statement made before the police -- Named accused has already secured bail in this case -- Challan has already been filed -- No specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner -- Petition allowed, direction given to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Section 324, 323, 379-B, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Snatching – Regular bail – Out of three other cases, petitioner is on bail in two and in third case after conviction on bail in pending appeal – In present case only non-bailable offence u/s 379-B of the IPC -- An amount of Rs.3,000/- was snatched away from the pocket of the complainant by the accused persons named by him, which included 7 other culprits apart from the petitioner and it was not alleged that the petitioner alone was the one who robbed the complainant of this amount -- Long detention since 13.07.2020, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Sections 120-B -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21-A, 27, 29 – Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

Sections 302, 307, 354, 341, 323, 365, 506, 148/149 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(s) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail -- S.I.T. upon examining the 'Call Detail Records', had come to a conclusion that as per 'Tower Location' information, none of the two petitioners was present at the spot at the time of occurrence – None of the petitioners is attributed the fatal blow either as per the FIR or as per the supplementary statement made by the complainant -- Petitioners have been behind bars since the last more than 6 months and challan already stands presented -- None of the petitioners is stated to be involved in any other case, as per the custody certificate -- Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Sections 302, 201, 404, 392, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Section 376-D – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Section 120-B, 366 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Kidnapping –Conspiracy – Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal -- Appellants facilitating procurement of Sim Card – 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.

(SC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

Sections 302, 307, 427, 435, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2020

Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307, 506, 427 and 120B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

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 baseball 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Sections 307, 336, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

Sections 376-D, 420, 367, 370 – Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Sections 323, 307, 452, 188, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Section 368, 372, 373 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 17 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.09.2020

Sections 302, 460, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2020

Section 384, 406, 420 –Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2020

Section 379-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.08.2020

Section 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 16 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 376, 506 – 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 (POCSO) – Regular bail – Love affair matter -- Compromise for marriage of petitioner and prosecutrix – Adjudication of question of guilt or innocence of the petitioner on the basis of evidence to be produced during trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19 and that further detention of the petitioner in custody 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Sections 376-D, 363, 366-A, 376, 506, 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3,4 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3,4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Gang rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix supported the prosecution version, however, she turned hostile in respect of other accused -- Out of 20 prosecution witnesses, 07 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Petitioner is in custody since July, 2018 -- Due to the situation arising out of COVID-19 pandemic, the administration has imposed restrictions to curb its spread, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Section 420, 423, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheating by way of registered sale deed – Attesting witness – Role of – Anticipatory bail -- Complainant alleged to be cheated by her niece and her niece’s husband in relation to certain immovable property, fraudulently transferred by way of a registered sale deed -- Petitioner was one of the attesting witnesses to the said document -- This being the limited role attributed to him, Court opined that it would suffice if he joins investigation at this stage and co-operates with the police -- Petition allowed and he shall forthwith join investigation and in the event his arrest is warranted in future in relation to this case, the petitioner shall be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Sections 354, 452 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO matter – Compromise between the parties – Regular bail -- Allegations that while victim’s parents were away, the accused/petitioner gained forcibly entry into her room and scuffled with her -- It is only when the victim called out to her sister that the accused ran away -- Petitioner was arrested on 29.05.2020 – Investigation in the case is complete and the challan already stands presented -- It is not a case of sexual assault – Compromise has since been effected with the intervention of the village elders – Petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2020

Section 302 -- Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 3 – Sentenced for life imprisonment till natural life without remission – Parole/Temporary release – Right of -- Divisional Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application for temporary release/parole, on the grounds that the trial Court by an order awarded her a sentence of imprisonment for life i.e. whole of her natural life, without any remission, consequent to her conviction for the offences u/s 302, 343 and 120-B of the IPC -- Divisional Commissioner’s order is legally unsustainable and set aside -- Petitioner’s application for parole remitted to the Divisional Commissioner to consider afresh in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.08.2020

Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 201, 411, 115 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that he was handed over the weapon after the incident was over and that too by the main accused while the petitioner was in his own house -- Co-accused, from whom the motorcycle, on which the main accused was riding, was purchased has been granted bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2020

Sections 302, 201, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Dead body not recovered -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is brother-in-law of the deceased -- Entire family i.e. wife, minor son and the present petitioner, being the brother of the wife of the deceased has been enroped, whereas, dead body has not been recovered till date and the only evidence is the extra judicial confession -- Petition allowed, petitioner released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2020

Section 406, 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating – Regular bail -- Offences registered against the petitioner are triable by the Judicial Magistrate -- Law is more liberal with regard to grant of bail to a woman -- Challan has been presented in the Court but conclusion of trial is likely to take its own time -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.08.2020

Sections 202, 392, 396, 404, 412, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity with murder -- Regular bail -- Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence -- Petitioner in custody since 17.07.2015 and has been inculpated on the statement of the co-accused -- Chilli powder recovered from the petitioner -- Truck, of which the deceased were driver and conductor, was recovered from other co-accused, as was the weapon of offence – No allegation that the petitioner is likely to abscond or influence witnesses -- Due to outbreak of the pandemic COVID-19 trial is not likely to be concluded in near future -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated any longer – Petition allowed, petitioner be released on bail pending trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Section 304-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389(1) -- Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Cancellation of -- Death took place within 7 or 8 months and there is oral evidence of the parents of cruelty and torture immediately preceding the death -- Also evidence of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent-Accused by the victim’s brother -- Respondent No.2-accused has not been able to demonstrate any apparent and/or obvious illegality or error in the judgment of the Sessions Court, to call for suspension of execution of the sentence. Held, in considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous -- Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail -- Appellant spent money beyond his financial capacity, at the wedding of the victim and had even gifted an I-10 car -- Failure to lodge an FIR complaining of dowry and harassment before the death of the victim is inconsequential -- Parents and other family members of the victim obviously would not want to precipitate a complete breakdown of the marriage by lodging an FIR against the Respondent No.2 and his parents, while the victim was alive. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender for being taken into custody -- The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Section 304-B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Dowry death -- Object was to curb dowry death -- Section 304B does not categorize death, it covers every kind of death that occurs otherwise than in normal circumstances -- Where the other ingredients of Section 304B of the Code are satisfied, the deeming fiction of Section 304B would be attracted and the husband or the relatives shall be deemed to have caused the death of the bride -- In dealing with cases under Section 304B, this legislative intent has to be kept in mind -- Once there is material to show that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment before death, there is a presumption of dowry death and the onus is on the accused in-laws to show otherwise.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Section 304-B, 498-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Conviction for dowry death – Suspension of sentence -- Appellant is confined in jail from 15.12.2016 onwards and father of the appellant was diagnosed with pancolitis – Appeal pending before the High Court – Without going into the merits of the matter, considering the submissions and other material placed on record and further taking into account that the appellant is in jail since 15.12.2016, sentence suspended.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Section 323, 377, 379-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Allegations that two persons in a drunken condition had slapped the complainant, taken away his phone and then called up his mother and thereafter the 3rd person (unnamed) took him besides the canal and did a wrong act with him -- A sum of Rs.5000/- and two mobile phones were also snatched – Initial allegation was against an unnamed person -- Complainant suffered a supplementary statement in which the name of the present petitioner has figured – DNA report of the complainant also does not support the prosecution version -- Petitioner was arrested on 18.11.2019 -- Trial is at the initial stage and would take time to conclude particularly keeping in view the current Covid-19 situation -- Petitioner held entitled to the benefit of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Sections 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Run-away marriage – FIR under POCSO/IPC – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Now victim has been residing at her matrimonial home -- Petitioner has been in custody since 06.6.2020 -- Trial will take time to conclude -- 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 is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Section 406, 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Complainant also part of illegal activity – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since January, 2020 -- Challan filed -- Allegations against the petitioner is that he took money from the complainant to get him admission in MBBS -- If it is so, then the complainant too is equally indulging in the illegal activity -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail -- Cheating -- Case pertains to an agreement to sell -- Petitioner was shown as one of the witness therein -- This being the limited role attributed to him, it would suffice if the petitioner cooperates with the police -- Petition allowed, petitioner is directed to forthwith join investigation and in event of his arrest shall be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Sections 395, 397, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dacoity – Regular bail -- No other evidence against the petitioner as on date except the statement of the co-accused which cannot be read against him -- Similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail – Petition allowed, petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2020

Sections 313, 323, 34, 376 (2) (n), 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape on pretext to marriage – Regular bail – Prosecutrix is still married, no legal divorce and only statement that she got divorce before panchayat – Material witness i.e. prosecutrix has already been examined and there is no likelihood of petitioner influencing the trial, as there are no such allegations – Petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2019, regular bail granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.08.2020

Sections 323, 380, 452, 34 (lateron added 395, 397) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Compromise between the parties – Seeing the nature of accusation against the petitioners and also the fact that trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of Covid-19 concession of regular bail extended to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376(2) (n), 120-B – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Minor girl aged 15 years – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had left the house alongwith accused of her own and they had established physical relations with each other -- She also stated that she wanted to marry with accused -- Interim bail for a period of one month to perform marriage with the victim granted -- Marriage with the victim solemnised on 21.07.2020 -- Petitioners (Husband and brother-in-law) have been in custody since January, 2020, challan has already been presented -- Victim and her parents have given statements in favour of the petitioners -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Sections 366, 376, 494 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case – Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2019 -- In the interest of both the sides, the matter has been compromised between the parties -- Complainant has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Sections 366, 376, 506, 120-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape case – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has categorically deposed as to having been raped by the petitioner -- However, State has not been able to dispute the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, where she has admitted that she had gone with the petitioner to various places -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2018 and that out of 14, only 8 witnesses have been examined so far -- Petition allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Sections 406, 420 IPC -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of1983), Section 10, 24 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Immigration matter – Anticipatory bail -- Rs.3 lacs paid to co-accused -- It is not disputed that the petitioner is not directly related to co-accused -- No amount is stated to have been paid to the petitioner -- Anticipatory bail granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Sections 302, 34, 452, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Lalkara alleged -- Regular bail – Petitioner is attributed only a 'lalkara', he is in custody for over 09 months, the complainant and 02 eye witnesses have been examined, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2020

Section 323, 324, 326, 458, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Grievous hurt not attributed to petitioner -- Anticipatory bail -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature and one of the co-accused has already been granted protection against his arrest – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2020

Section 323, 324, 34, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Criminal intimidation – Anticipatory bail -- All the offences except the offence under Section 506 IPC, alleged against the petitioners are bailable -- Petitioners are granted concession of anticipatory bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2020

Section 376, 406, 120-B, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Keeping in view the cumulative facts that there was relationship interse the parties from the year 2014 till the application was given in the year 2019 and they had also travelled out of station to various places, it would be a moot question as such as to whether an offence u/s 376 IPC is made out -- Similarly whether there was any cheating and inducement -- Petitioner has already undergone 5 months and 10 days imprisonment -- Considerable time shall be taken in concluding the trial especially in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner has undergone sufficient period of detention and he is entitled for the benefit of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2020

Section 148, 149, 307, 341 & 506 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner, however police had not recovered even any empties/fire bullet from the spot -- In this incident no injury is caused to the complainant by any fire arm – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Section 354, 451, 109, 323 & 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Outrage modesty of woman – Anticipatory bail -- In attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant, petitioner had pulled the chunni of the complainant and also caused bruises with his hands on the face and breast of the complainant -- However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had not used any weapon -- Therefore, nothing is required to be recovered from him, as such – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Section 363, 366, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping/ Abduction of girl -- Regular bail -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and the fact that the prosecutrix has given statement that she has gone on its own with the accused, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

Section 376, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner has neither alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix nor has he done anything, which would be termed as an overt act and further the petitioner in custody, has now completed more than 14 months -- With the prevailing circumstances, trial is not likely to proceed soon as the Courts are not recording evidence at present -- Petitioner is directed to be release on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

Sections 376(2), 506, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Allegation of rape – No medical examination – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years and the trial is likely to take sufficient long time due to Covid-19 – FIR has been lodged after one year of the occurrence and even the medical examination of the complainant was not got conducted at the relevant point of time or subsequent thereto, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose -- Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.07.2020

Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376(3) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the prosecution case, the petitioner is in custody for almost a year -- Covid 19 pandemic and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2020

Sections 363, 366, 376(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Kidnapping and rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has failed to support the prosecution version nor her mother i.e. complainant has supported the prosecution story – Challan has been filed, charges have been framed and out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 05 have been examined -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, especially during the prevailing conditions of corona virus pandemic -- Petition for regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.07.2020

Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Allegation of cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail -- Dispute regarding agreement to sell and receiving of Rs.10 lacs -- Petitioner No.1 is ready to deposit the said amount in the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, subject to final outcome of the case, to show his bona fide -- Admitted case of the complainant that they had business transactions with the petitioners and have already filed suit for recovery – Held, entire case is based upon the documentary evidence for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required -- Petitioners are directed to be released on interim bail -- Two month time granted to deposit the amount of Rs.10 lacs before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate without prejudice to their right of defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2020

Section 376, 354-A, 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 09.08.2019 -- Prosecutrix has denied the fact that the petitioner established physical relations with her -- Prosecutrix was got declared hostile by the prosecution – It would not be appropriate to further continue to incarcerate the petitioner – Conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2020

Sections 148, 149, 188, 323, 324, 326, 427, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 03.05.2020 -- FIR reflects that no specific overt acts were attributed to him -- Petitioner is presently aged about 77 years – Petitioner held entitled to grant of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.06.2020

Section 323, 506, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Charges framed u/s 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC – Attempt to murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner suffered three injuries including two fractures on the fingers of his left hand – Though in the said case, the police had filed a cancellation report, yet the fact remains that in the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the proceedings are pending before the SDJM – Petitioner is attributed a sword blow on the abdomen of Taya of the complainant -- Whether or not the petitioner is an aggressor, is yet to be determined -- Petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2019 -- Challan has already been presented and the charges have also been framed -- Petition allowed, regular bail granted to petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 24.06.2020

Sections 147, 148, 307, 379-B, 427, 436, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No material except the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 23.02.2020, challan having been presented but charges yet to be framed – Bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.06.2020

Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 –Trial not commenced – Prosecution rests mainly on documents -- Regular bail – Appellant, who is admittedly 62 years of age has already spent nearly a year in judicial custody -- A period of nine months has passed from the date of filing of the charge sheet -- Charges have not been framed and the trial has not commenced as yet -- Though much is said about the tempering of witnesses, it is seen from the material on record that the prosecution rests mainly on documents -- In any case, the prosecution is not remediless, if a person enlarged on bail, indulges in certain activities – Held, appellant is entitled to bail.

(SC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Sections 188, 269, 270 -- Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 51 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20, 29 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Accused in custody since 11.04.2020 -- Since the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as due to COVID-19 situation, Courts are not working at their full strength and not taking up regular hearing matters, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 302, 307, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Allegation of Murder – Regular bail to Juvenile – Right of – Intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence -- Held, a juvenile can be denied the concession of bail, if any of the three contingencies specified under Section 12(1) of the Act is available -- Court below has not satisfied the requirement of provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act and without having any material on record, the bail application of the petitioner has been declined -- Accordingly, petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Sections 304-B, 406 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 -- Dowry death – Regular bail -- Custody since 25.07.2018 – Trial is likely to take some time -- An application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution for summoning the additional accused -- Covid-19 pandemic situation -- Courts are not working at full strength, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 307, 285, 506, 147, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Once the co-accused have already been acquitted and the petitioner is not alleged to have played any active role, it would not be appropriate to further incarcerate the petitioner -- Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2019 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficient time, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Sections 307, 336, 353, 186, 212, 216-A, 148/149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25/54 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No injury is attributed to the petitioner, he is 24 years of age, is in custody for over 01 year -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Sections 354, 354-A, 451, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Sexual assault to child – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 07.12.2019 -- 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 -- Petitioner is admitted to bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- Kidnapping – Allegation of aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Regular bail -- Bollywood movie “Bobby” like run away couple cases seem to be rampantly happening in the society -- Boy aged 19/20 years and girl aged 17 years – Girl refused for medico-legal examination in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.c. and stated that she willingly married to petitioner -- Prima facie, it is a case of consensual love -- Petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2020 -- Investigation is over and challan has been filed and trial is not likely to start or conclude anytime soon in view of current pandemic scenario – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Section 377, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Unnatural offence – Penetrative sexual assault – Regular bail -- Two prosecution witnesses including the complainant have been examined but 09 PWs are yet to be examined – When, the petitioner is in custody for almost 07 months; he is not involved in any other case; the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Petitioner is granted concession of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Forgery and fabrication – Anticipatory bail -- Allegations that petitioner forged and fabricated the documents to avoid the tax liability -- All the documents are already in possession of the police -- Whether the petitioner had any role to play in the entire gamut or he has been made scapegoat, as alleged, can be ascertained once the petitioner joins the investigation vis a vis the documentary evidence already seized – Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.06.2020

Section 377, 34 -- 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 -- Unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Record or the circumstances of the case do not show that there is any reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is likely to bring himself into association with known criminals if released on bail; or that he will expose himself to some moral, physical or psychological danger – Policy and provision of the Juvenile Justice Act is in favour of grant of bail to the juvenile -- Since the circumstances or the grounds justifying denial of the bail are not discernible in the case, therefore, the petitioner deserve to be allowed concession of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2020

Section 302, 323, 325, 506, 34 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Child in conflict with law – Regular bail – Right of -- Petitioner is less than 16 years of age on the date of occurrence – Grant of bail to a juvenile is the rule -- Bail to a juvenile can be declined only in case his release is likely to bring him in association with known-criminals or expose him to moral, physical or physiological danger or where his release would defeat the ends of justice -- Gravity or nature of the offence is not a relevant consideration -- Furthermore, u/s 3(i) of the Act, a presumption of innocence of any malafide or criminal intent arises in favour of the juvenile – Petitioner has spent more than 07 months in incarceration – Detention of the petitioner would mar his future education and prospects in life -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail, grandfather of the petitioner shall regularly monitor the movement of the petitioner and ensure that the petitioner does not come in association with any known-criminals and does not indulge in any other offence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.05.2020

Sections 323, 376(2)(n), 376D, 328, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Gang Rape – Compromise -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix was offered for medical examination, but she has not come forward to undergo such medical examination – Petition so as to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise filed -- Prosecutrix is residing in the matrimonial home as she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner -- Though, the allegations in the FIR are serious but considering the fact that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and has not opted for medical examination, Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2020

Sections 364, 506 -- 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 – Bail to juvenile – Right of -- Intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and the same can be declined only in case where reasonable grounds are there for believing that the release is likely to bring him into the association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice -- Juvenile is entitled to bail as a matter of right unless the case falls in the exceptions carved out in the provision itself but nothing was available on record to show that any of the three exceptions specified under Section 12(1) of the Act was existing -- Both the Courts below have not satisfied the requirement of provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act and without having any material on record, the bail application of the petitioner has been declined -- Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.01.2020

Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 438 -- Default bail given – New sections/offences added – Anticipatory bail applied -- Petitioner was given benefit of bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. as challan was not presented against him – Main case of the prosecution remains the same regarding disproportionate assets – Held, if some other offences have been added in the FIR, even then, the petitioner is not required for further interrogation purposes etc. – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail in newly added Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.04.2019

Section 406, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Condition requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh), that too directly to the informant/complainant, is harsh and unacceptable -- Condition set aside -- Appellant must comply with other conditions specified in the impugned order for availing the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(SC) Decided on: 29.01.2019

NDPS case -- Younger brother of the petitioner passed away and his rasam pagri/bhog is scheduled for 24.06.2022 -- Petition disposed of, Superintendent, District Jail directed to ensure that the petitioner is taken in custody to the venue of Rasam Pagri/Bhog on 24.06.2022 by 10:00 AM and shall ensure that he is brought back to the jail premises by or before 5:00 PM on the same day itself.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.06.2022

Regular bail -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and the fact that the prosecutrix has given statement that she has gone on its own with the accused, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

Regular bail – Custody period – Gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest -- Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves, do not make out a case for grant of bail – Respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or improbable – Bail by High Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Unlawful assembly -- Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner either on the person of the deceased or on the person of any of the injured -- Recovery of motor cycle has been shown from him -- It would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether the petitioner could be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC – Petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2021 and the investigation already stands completed, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.06.2022

Regular bail -- Occurrence is of 16.08.2017 and the postmortem conducted on 05.09.2017 – As per the medical evidence “the death could have occurred 5 to 6 weeks prior to the postmortem examination” – As per the statement of PW-8, no cause of death could be ascertained in the case – Petitioner is behind the bars since 03.09.2017 and there is no other case pending against him -- Case is based on circumstantial evidence – Even on 25.08.2020 when the co-accused granted regular bail, it was contended that out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, 19 have already been examined – Regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2022

Sections 8, 18(b), 25, 29, 60, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case -- 5.83 Kgs of opium recovered – Death of younger brother -- Interim bail -- Younger brother of the petitioner passed away and his rasam pagri/bhog is scheduled for 24.06.2022 -- Petition disposed of, Superintendent, District Jail directed to ensure that the petitioner is taken in custody to the venue of Rasam Pagri/Bhog on 24.06.2022 by 10:00 AM and shall ensure that he is brought back to the jail premises by or before 5:00 PM on the same day itself.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.06.2022

Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Recovery of 206 grams of opium from co-accused – Disclosure that he sold 250 grams of opium to petitioner – Only on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner is sought to be roped in – Petitioner was earlier an accused in an offence under the IPC, but he stands acquitted in that case – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Sections 18, 61, 85 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 1 kg of opium – Petitioner behind bars since 16.04.2022 – Petitioner is facing another FIR, though not under NDPS Act – Keeping in view the fact that challan has not yet been presented and the trial is going to take long time, the petitioner held entitled for concession of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Interim bail -- Younger brother of the petitioner passed away and his rasam pagri/bhog is scheduled for 24.06.2022 -- Petition disposed of, Superintendent, District Jail directed to ensure that the petitioner is taken in custody to the venue of Rasam Pagri/Bhog on 24.06.2022 by 10:00 AM and shall ensure that he is brought back to the jail premises by or before 5:00 PM on the same day itself.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.06.2022

Anticipatory bail – Recovery of 206 grams of opium from co-accused – Disclosure that he sold 250 grams of opium to petitioner – Only on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner is sought to be roped in – Petitioner directed to appear before the SHO/Investigating Officer to join investigation and in the event of his arrest, he ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Regular bail -- Recovery of 1 kg of opium – Petitioner behind bars since 16.04.2022 – Petitioner is facing another FIR, though not under NDPS Act – Keeping in view the fact that challan has not yet been presented and the trial is going to take long time, the petitioner held entitled for concession of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused after grant of bail – Cancellation of bail – Rule of natural justice -- Address mentioned in the Court notice, being an incorrect description thereof, petitioner/accused did not come to be validly served on his correct address, hence the learned trial Magistrate concerned, could not conclude that any valid service, became caused upon him, nor could he conclude, that there was any willful, and, deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner, to cause his personal appearance -- Contrarily, it became incumbent upon the learned Magistrate, to after discovering the correct address, cause there his valid service however, did not recourse, the above measure -- Impugned order quashed, and, set aside -- Petitioner directed to cause his personal appearance before the learned Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheque bounce case -- Non-bailable warrants – Bailable case – Need of anticipatory bail – Held, petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act which is a bailable offence -- Hence, there is no occasion for apprehension of arrest and detention in a bailable offence provided the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the conditions set forth by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for granting him the concession of bail – Petition withdrawn with liberty to move an application/petition for bail before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2020

Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed offender -- Order challenged after 4 years -- There may not be any reason to allow, however keeping in view the fact that the matter actually arises out of proceedings u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and petitioner undertakes to continue appearing before the trial Court on each and every date and also and a mother of two minor children (less than 10 years of age), impugned order set aside, upon the petitioner furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.10.2019

Section 138, 143-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 421 – Cheque bounce case – Interim compensation -- Non-deposit of – It is nowhere, specifically provided in the Act that if the payment as ordered has not been deposited, the bail granted shall be liable to be consequently cancelled – Recovery can be made of such defaulted amount as if it is a fine under Section 421 Cr.P.C. -- During the trial of the case, the Court should not cancel the bail already granted on this ground alone.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Section 138, 143-A – Cheque bounce case -- Directions to deposit certain percentage of compensation/fine – Non-deposit of – Once the legislature or framers of the NI Act have not made any specific provision for automatic cancellation of the bail granted by the trial court or the appellate court on account of default of payment of interim compensation or certain percentage of compensation or fine, it would not be appropriate to hold it otherwise.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Cheque bounce case -- Cancellation of bail bond – Non-bailable warrant -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Cancellation of bail – Rule of natural justice -- Address mentioned in the Court notice, being an incorrect description thereof, petitioner/accused did not come to be validly served on his correct address, hence the learned trial Magistrate concerned, could not conclude that any valid service, became caused upon him, nor could he conclude, that there was any willful, and, deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner, to cause his personal appearance -- Contrarily, it became incumbent upon the learned Magistrate, to after discovering the correct address, cause there his valid service however, did not recourse, the above measure -- Impugned order quashed, and, set aside -- Petitioner directed to cause his personal appearance before the learned Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.07.2022

Absence from trial – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented -- Keeping in view that there is only a single date default, petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court within ten days from today and on his doing so he shall be released on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Anticipatory bail – Held, petitioner has been summoned for an offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act which is a bailable offence -- Hence, there is no occasion for apprehension of arrest and detention in a bailable offence provided the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the conditions set forth by the concerned Illaqa Magistrate for granting him the concession of bail – Petition withdrawn with liberty to move an application/petition for bail before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.05.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Non-appearance of accused – Cancellation of bail bond – -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Cheque bounce case -- Absence of accused – Anticipatory bail -- Accused remained absent without any intimation to the trial Court that is why the trial Court forfeited his surety and issued non-bailable warrants -- Without finding any fault with the order of the trial Court and Sessions Court, looking to the peculiar facts that the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is involved and the case being u/s 138 NI Act, there is no point to put the petitioner in custody – Non-bailable warrant set-aside, petitioner is granted anticipatory bail on the bail bonds earlier furnished by him before the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.07.2017

Cheque bounce case – Once the legislature or framers of the NI Act have not made any specific provision for automatic cancellation of the bail granted by the trial court or the appellate court on account of default of payment of interim compensation or certain percentage of compensation or fine, it would not be appropriate to hold it otherwise.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Cheque bounce case – It is nowhere, specifically provided in the Act that if the payment as ordered has not been deposited, the bail granted shall be liable to be consequently cancelled – Recovery can be made of such defaulted amount as if it is a fine under Section 421 Cr.P.C. -- During the trial of the case, the Court should not cancel the bail already granted on this ground alone.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.07.2019

Regular bail – High Court proceeded to grant bail to the respondent No. 2 only for the reason that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail -- Order granting bail to the co-accused met with its strong disapproval by Supreme Court – High Court granted bail to the co-accused while ignoring the relevant considerations and with a mere reference to the mandate of Article 21 -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Dacoity – Regular bail – Co-accused suffered disclosure statement, wherein he named the petitioner -- Custody since 20.09.2020, challan already stand presented -- Co-accused, who nominated the petitioner have already been granted concession of regular bail alongwith one more co-accused – Purely on the parity with co-accused, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Breach of the bail condition – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.01.2022

Regular bail – Ad-interim compensation as a ground -- High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(SC) Decided on : 09.09.2022

Cheque bounce case – Order challenged after 4 years -- There may not be any reason to allow, however keeping in view the fact that the matter actually arises out of proceedings u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and petitioner undertakes to continue appearing before the trial Court on each and every date and also and a mother of two minor children (less than 10 years of age), impugned order set aside, upon the petitioner furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.10.2019

Cheque bounce case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner ready to deposit 20% of cheque amount of Rs. 5 lacs – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2020

Cheque bounce case – Released on bail – Impounding of passport – Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, she was granted bail and, thus, the proclamation order ceased to be operative -- Said fact was well within the knowledge of respondent-Regional Passport Office -- Fundamental Rights of the petitioner breached -- Hence, the impugned action is highly deprecated -- Petition allowed with a costs of Rs.1.00 lakh to be paid by respondent-RPO to the petitioner -- Respondent-RPO directed to release the passport of the petitioner within 15 days.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.08.2020

Cheque bounce case -- Anticipatory bail -- Point for determination is whether the petitioner has been rightly declared proclaimed offender -- Otherwise also, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is bailable in nature -- Petitioner has already given an undertaking that he would submit to the process of law and would furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court – Direction given to the petitioner to appear before trial court and furnish bail bond has been complied with – Interim order is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.04.2015

Sections 4, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 342, 376(D) -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(4)(w)(i) – POCSO matter – Regular bail – Ad-interim compensation as a ground -- High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(SC) Decided on : 09.09.2022

Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 446A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 120-B, 376 -- Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented and even his bail bonds have not been cancelled or forfeited to the State -- Keeping in view that there is only a single date default, petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court within ten days from today and on his doing so he shall be released on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Sections 61, 78, 14 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Excise matter – Regular bail -- FIR on secret information -- Total 120 bottles of liquor were recovered from the WagonR belonging to petitioner KS and 480 bottles of 750 ml each were recovered from the car belonging to the petitioner S@G -- Liquor, purchased by the petitioners from Chandigarh for onward sale in Ludhiana – Petitioners are in custody since 01.05.2022 and investigation is already complete and maximum prescribed sentence is three years -- Taking into consideration the facts noticed, the role attributed, the nature and gravity of the offence, the stage of the case as well as the period of custody already undergone by the petitioners, Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petitions -- Petitioners admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.06.2022

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 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

Murder case – Regular bail -- Role attributed to the petitioner 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.10.2020

Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is attributed only a 'lalkara', he is in custody for over 09 months, the complainant and 02 eye witnesses have been examined, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2020

Regular bail -- Complicity of the petitioner in the offence would remain subject matter of debate before the Trial Court and the petitioner, who is in custody for the last more than 10 months would be entitled to be released on bail as 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Run-away marriage with minor – Regular bail -- Victim had left the house of her own and gone to Bihar with co-accused, where they had performed the marriage -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that she had allured the victim, who is a minor girl -- Petitioner, who is having a minor child, has been in custody since 14.08.2020 -- No witness has been examined so far -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Petition allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.12.2020

Bail to juvenile -- POCSO case -- Rape with minor cousin sister – Prosecutrix was residing in house of petitioner being brought up by his mother -- Prosecutrix entire statement recorded – Petitioner was aged about 15 years when the FIR was lodged still continues to be a juvenile -- By now, he has already remained in Safe Custody for more than one year and one and a half months – His further detention there would not appear to be in his overall interest due to the fact that there are likely to be more juveniles in conflict with law, housed in the same premises -- Prosecutrix has already been shifted from the parental house of the petitioner -- No reason to deny petitioner the opportunity of coming back to the custody of his parents -- Trial is likely to take its own substantial time, particularly on account of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic -- Revision petition allowed -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.11.2020

Relation on pretext of marriage – Prosecutrix already married – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix was married and staying with GC (the elder brother of her deceased husband) -- Unless the prosecutrix proves that she has taken divorce from GC, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage – Petitioner in custody since 31.08.2020 and the parties being mature enough to understand the implications of such like relationship and trial in the case will take sufficient long time, Court deemed it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.11.2020

Anticipatory bail -- Allegation that when the complainant was present in her room, the petitioner forcibly entered into her room and caught hold of her from the backside and started imposing himself with a bad intention and also started pressing her breasts – As per the statement of the victim and medical report, no case u/s 376 IPC is made out and the same stands deleted and Section 354 IPC has been added subsequently -- Petition allowed, interim bail granted to the petitioner made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

Supplementary statement -- POCSO case -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Compromise in matter -- POCSO case -- 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 -- Direction given to release the petitioner on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

POCSO 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

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 – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.10.2020

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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Suspension of sentence -- POCSO matter -- Conviction for 12 years – 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 -- Further sentence of applicant-appellant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

Interim bail on medical ground by High Court – No satisfaction recorded by the High Court that treatment offered to respondent/accused was not adequate and he requires any further treatment by any particular medical institute for which it is necessary to release the respondent on interim bail on medical grounds -- Even as on date, due medical care is being taken of the respondent/accused -- High Court, without considering the entire materials on record, has passed the impugned order, which is unsustainable – Appeal allowed, order granting interim bail set aside.

(SC) Decided on: 15.10.2020

Juvenile law -- Regular bail – Exception has been carved out for declining the bail to the juvenile who is in conflict with law i.e. he or she is likely to come in association with any known criminal or upon release on bail would expose such juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger or that release of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice -- For invoking such exception, there has to be some material before the competent authority -- Impugned orders completely bereft of any such reasoning -- Impugned orders of both the Courts below set aside -- Petitioner is held entitled to grant of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Disclosure statement of co-accused -- Rape and kidnapping of girl-child -- Regular bail -- Petitioner was implicated only upon the disclosure statement of the named accused – Daughter had been enticed away by the named accused on the pretext of marriage -- Complainant did not name the petitioner as being involved -- Victim girl did not even mention the petitioner's name in her statement made before the police -- Named accused has already secured bail in this case -- No specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioner – Petitioner ordered to be release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Complainant not supported the case of prosecution -- Regular bail -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

No overt act -- Disclosure statement -- 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 -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2020

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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.09.2020

Love affair matter -- POCSO case -- Regular bail – Compromise for marriage of petitioner and prosecutrix – Adjudication of question of guilt or innocence of the petitioner on the basis of evidence to be produced during trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of infection of Covid-19 and that further detention of the petitioner in custody 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Rape on pretext to marriage – Regular bail – Prosecutrix is still married, no legal divorce and only statement that she got divorce before panchayat – Material witness i.e. prosecutrix has already been examined and there is no likelihood of petitioner influencing the trial, as there are no such allegations – Petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2019, regular bail granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.08.2020

Compromise between parties – POCSO matter -- Minor girl aged 15 years – Regular bail – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had left the house alongwith accused of her own and they had established physical relations with each other -- She also stated that she wanted to marry with accused -- Interim bail for a period of one month to perform marriage with the victim granted -- Marriage with the victim solemnised on 21.07.2020 -- Petitioners (Husband and brother-in-law) have been in custody since January, 2020, challan has already been presented -- Victim and her parents have given statements in favour of the petitioners -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Specific allegations against the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2019 -- In the interest of both the sides, the matter has been compromised between the parties -- Complainant has no objection if the petitioner is released on bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has categorically deposed as to having been raped by the petitioner -- However, State has not been able to dispute the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, where she has admitted that she had gone with the petitioner to various places -- Petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2018 and that out of 14, only 8 witnesses have been examined so far -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2020

Regular bail -- Keeping in view the cumulative facts that there was relationship interse the parties from the year 2014 till the application was given in the year 2019 and they had also travelled out of station to various places, it would be a moot question as such as to whether an offence u/s 376 IPC is made out -- Similarly whether there was any cheating and inducement -- Petitioner has already undergone 5 months and 10 days imprisonment -- Considerable time shall be taken in concluding the trial especially in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner has undergone sufficient period of detention and he is entitled for the benefit of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.07.2020

Regular bail -- Petitioner has neither alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix nor has he done anything, which would be termed as an overt act and further the petitioner in custody, has now completed more than 14 months -- With the prevailing circumstances, trial is not likely to proceed soon as the Courts are not recording evidence at present -- Petitioner directed to be release on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

No medical examination – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years and the trial is likely to take sufficient long time due to Covid-19 – FIR has been lodged after one year of the occurrence and even the medical examination of the complainant was not got conducted at the relevant point of time or subsequent thereto, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose -- Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.07.2020

POCSO case -- Regular bail -- Prosecutrix and her mother have not supported the prosecution case, the petitioner is in custody for almost a year -- Covid 19 pandemic and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.07.2020

Regular bail -- Prosecutrix has failed to support the prosecution version nor her mother i.e. complainant has supported the prosecution story – Challan has been filed, charges have been framed and out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 05 have been examined -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, especially during the prevailing conditions of corona virus pandemic -- Petition for regular bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.07.2020

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 – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2020

Recovery of 1500 intoxicating tablets – NDPS case – Regular bail – Keeping in view that the petitioner is a licensed chemist, entitled to the possession of such tablets and was apprehended while travelling, therefore, his culpability is subject to evidence at the trial -- Petitioner is behind the bars for more than one year, it would be travesty of justice to keep him in custody for more time -- Efforts are being made by the authorities to decongest the jails to prevent the further spread of malady (Covid-19), petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Recovery of 7600 intoxicating tablets -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Petitioners are in custody since 25.08.2019 -- FIR is based on secret information, thus, culpability, conscious possession of which accused if any, would be determined at the time of trial -- Since, the petitioners are behind the bars for more than one year and in view of present COVID-19 pandemic and the efforts of the authorities in decongesting the jail which are busting the seams and the ratios cited for parity, Court deems it fit to allow the regular bail to the petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Recovery of 510 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for a period of 1 year, 2 months and 22 days and no other case has been pointed out against the petitioner -- No prosecution witness has been examined so far -- Considering the fact that trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future due to Covid-19 pandemic, this Court deems it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.10.2020

Recovery of 350 grams intoxicant powder, having salt Diacetylmorphine – NDPS case -- Commercial quantity – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Recovery of 126 kg of poopy husk from co-accused -- NDPS case – Disclosure statement -- 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 – Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Recovery of 650 tablets of Clovidol-100SR – NDPS matter -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.09.2020

Recovery of 217 kgs of poppy husk -- NDPS matter – Second petition for regular bail -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2020

Recovery of 1 kg and 600 grams of Ganja Phul Patti -- NDPS matter – Regular bail -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2020

Recovery of 1300 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride total weight comes to 546.169 grams – NDPS matter – Regular bail – Petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2020 -- Challan has been presented and charges are yet to be framed -- Since trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in the near future and there being no other case against the petitioner – Petitioner admitted on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Recovery of 18 injections of Buprenorphine of 2 ml each -- NDPS matter – Regular bail -- Though 18 injections of Avil of 10 ml each were also recovered from the petitioner, but the same do not fall within the ambit of NDPS Act -- No other case pending against the petitioner and he is in custody since 19.06.2019 -- Considering the fact that trial in the case will take sufficient long time, petitioner released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Recovery of 50 vials of Winicirex Cough Syrup and 400 tablets of Carisoma – NDPS matter – Regular bail -- Petitioners are in custody since 13.06.2019 and there is no other case pending against them -- In absence of any specific allegation in the FIR as to which of the petitioners was holding the strip of the bag and considering the fact that trial in the case will take sufficient long time -- Petitioners admitted on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Recovery of 1500 capsules of Ridlay Parvorin-Spas Tramadol -- NDPS case -- Commercial quantity -- 15 witnesses to be examined, petitioner in custody for more than one year -- Keeping in view that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 400 strips of TREDOL-100 – NDPS case -- Commercial quantity -- Petitioner in custody since 03.07.2019 – Out of 12 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date – Bail opposed on the ground that recovery from the petitioner is commercial in quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he is not entitled for concession of bail – Held, trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petition allowed, petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 5 grams heroin and 270 grams of intoxicant powder -- NDPS matter – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Commercial quantity is 250 grams -- Hence, the quantity recovered is marginally higher than the commercial quantity – Keeping in view recovery of marginally higher than the commercial quantity of intoxicant powder and that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer -- Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

Recovery of 255 gram of heroin – NDPS case -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 13 months – Till date, no witness has been examined, the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and the recovery, which has been effected from the petitioner, is marginally above commercial quantity and no case pending -- Petitioner be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.08.2020

Recovery of 4,000 tablets containing Clavidol (Tramadol) and 05 grams of heroin – NDPS matter – Petitioner, who is a lady with two minor children, is in custody for over 11 months, she is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Recovery of 55 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules (total 1320 in number) and 14 plastic vials of Corex Syrup -- NDPS matter – Regular bail – Petitioner was not arrested on the spot, there is no question of effecting any recovery of contraband from his conscious possession – Petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2019 -- Disclosure statement of the co-accused is not sufficient enough to establish the petitioner's culpability satisfactorily -- Petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases, however, there is no mention of the petitioner being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Long detention undergone by the petitioner, as also the fact that the trial is not likely to be commenced or completed in a reasonable time on account of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic -- Ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 29.07.2020

Recovery of 50 kg of Poppy husk weighed with bag -- NDPS case -- Default bail – Regular bail -- In case the poppy husk had been weighed separately from the bags wherein it was contained, it would not have come under the commercial quantity -- Challan ought to have been presented within a period of 60 days, considering the fact that the recovery was not of commercial quantity, which has not been done -- There is delay in the presentation of challan – Bail allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.07.2020

Recovery of 450 tablets of tramadol from co-accused -- NDPS case -- Anticipatory bail – Disclosure statement – Co-accused apprehended at the spot, named another person from whom he purchased – Later petitioner has been implicated on the statement of other co-accused – On direction, petitioner joined Investigaiton and released on ad-interim bail – In view that petitioner joined investigation and not required for custodial interrogation, the Covid-19 Pandemic, the order granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.07.2020

Recovery of 2 ½ kilograms of opium – NDPS case -- Regular bail – By consideration the fact that petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2019; that petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose; that challan has been presented in the Court; that trial has already commenced and since consequent 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 – Regular bail granted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.07.2020

Recovery of 60 Kgs. of Dodapost – NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Investigating Officer, when apprehended both the petitioners, gave them notice u/s 50 of the NDPS Act, in which the petitioners gave consent to be searched by the Investigating Officer and not before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and thereafter, the same Investigating Officer conducted the search and recovered 60 Kgs. of Dodapost from the petitioners – Charges have been framed, however, no prosecution witness has been examined so far – Petitioners are in judicial custody since 25.11.2019 and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time, the petitions allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

Recovery of 400 grams of heroin – NDPS case -- Regular bail -- Custody since 12.08.2019 -- FIR of 12.8.2019 do not give any time and place of apprehending the petitioner -- No independent person has been joined in the proceedings – Case property was produced before the Magistrate and the representative samples were drawn on 13.08.2019 and samples were ultimately sent to FSL only on 16.08.2019 -- Challan has been presented on 23.01.2020 -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case – Contended that according to instructions/notification No.1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, the samples are required to be sent to FSL within 72 hours, the non-compliance would entail in grant of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage – Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.06.2020

Recovery of 1.5 kg of Heroin -- NDPS matter – Regular Bail – Custody since 21.01.2018 -- Indictment of the petitioner on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by co-accused -- Petitioner was not travelling in the said bus from where the alleged contraband was recovered from possession of co-accused -- Trial of the case is likely to take time – Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.04.2019

Robbery – Without commenting anything as regards merits, noticing that the petitioner behind bars since the last about 7 months and otherwise has a clean record and that none of the cited 9 PWs has been examined till date, further detention of the petitioner would not be justified – Petition accepted, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

Parity -- High Court proceeded to grant bail to the respondent No. 2 only for the reason that identically placed co-accused persons had already been granted bail -- Order granting bail to the co-accused met with its strong disapproval by Supreme Court – High Court granted bail to the co-accused while ignoring the relevant considerations and with a mere reference to the mandate of Article 21 -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

Murder -- Custody period – Gruesome day-light murder of the son of the appellant with 8 grievous injuries, including those of incise wounds and stab wounds on and around the neck and the chest -- Respondent No. 2 had been in custody since 02.09.2019 or that he had no negative antecedents, by themselves, do not make out a case for grant of bail – Respondent No. 2 has specifically been named in the FIR as one of the assailants; and looking to the nature of the accusations and the nature of injuries, the prosecution case, prima facie, cannot dubbed as fanciful or improbable – Bail by High Court -- Impugned order set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

POCSO matter – Ad-interim compensation as a ground -- High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(SC) Decided on : 09.09.2022

Attempt to murder – No specific injury attributed to the petitioner -- General and oblivious allegations of causing injuries -- Even the injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body and the weapons claimed to have been used are blunt weapons – Petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2022 – No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner – Petitioner admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.06.2022

Excise matter – Total 120 bottles of liquor were recovered from the WagonR belonging to petitioner KS and 480 bottles of 750 ml each were recovered from the car belonging to the petitioner S@G -- Liquor, purchased by the petitioners from Chandigarh for onward sale in Ludhiana – Petitioners are in custody since 01.05.2022 and investigation is already complete and maximum prescribed sentence is three years -- Petitioners admitted to regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.06.2022

Murder – Unlawful assembly -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner either on the person of the deceased or on the person of any of the injured -- Recovery of motor cycle has been shown from him -- It would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether the petitioner could be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC – Petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2021 and the investigation already stands completed, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.06.2022

NDPS case – Recovery of 1 kg of opium – Petitioner behind bars since 16.04.2022 – Petitioner is facing another FIR, though not under NDPS Act – Keeping in view the fact that challan has not yet been presented and the trial is going to take long time, the petitioner held entitled for concession of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Dacoity – Parity with co-accused -- Co-accused suffered disclosure statement, wherein he named the petitioner -- Custody since 20.09.2020, challan already stand presented -- Co-accused, who nominated the petitioner have already been granted concession of regular bail alongwith one more co-accused – Purely on the parity with co-accused, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.06.2022

Murder case – Occurrence is of 16.08.2017 and the postmortem conducted on 05.09.2017 – As per the medical evidence “the death could have occurred 5 to 6 weeks prior to the postmortem examination” – As per the statement of PW-8, no cause of death could be ascertained in the case – Petitioner is behind the bars since 03.09.2017 and there is no other case pending against him -- Case is based on circumstantial evidence – Even on 25.08.2020 when the co-accused granted regular bail, it was contended that out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, 19 have already been examined – Regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2022

Gang rape – Petitioner is approximately 18 years whereas the age of prosecutrix is 28 years, who is also the paternal aunt of the petitioner – Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2021 and is in custody since then – Main witness has already been examined whereas nine other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and the petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2021, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.06.2022

Rape case – Complicity of the petitioner in the offence would remain subject matter of debate before the Trial Court and the petitioner, who is in custody for the last more than 10 months would be entitled to be released on bail as 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Abduction – Petitioner nominated as an accused some secret information received subsequently -- Petitioner 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 – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Kidnapping/ Abduction of girl -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and the fact that the prosecutrix has given statement that she has gone on its own with the accused, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.07.2020

Regular bail -- Without commenting anything as regards merits, noticing that the petitioner behind bars since the last about 7 months and otherwise has a clean record and that none of the cited 9 PWs has been examined till date, further detention of the petitioner would not be justified – Petition accepted, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2022

Section 3(4)(w)(i) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 342, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- POCSO matter – Regular bail – Ad-interim compensation as a ground -- High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(SC) Decided on : 09.09.2022

Section 3 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 450, 452, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Complicity of the petitioner in the offence would remain subject matter of debate before the Trial Court and the petitioner, who is in custody for the last more than 10 months would be entitled to be released on bail as 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Without delving into the merits or demerits, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.06.2022

Murder case -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.11.2020

NDPS matter – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.08.2020

NDPS case -- New ground for filing the petition is FSL report – Submission that sample was received after a delay of 06 days from passing of order by the JMIC and for the said period, it remained in the custody of I.O and there is no explanation in this regard -- In the FSL report, no batch number of the strips were mentioned though it is specifically mentioned in the order of JMIC and in Form 29-B – Petitioner is in judicial custody for the last 01 year, 01 month and 21 days and charged were framed on 30.01.2020 and till date, out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined -- Petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act of non-commercial quantity and the petitioner is on bail -- Considering the long custody of the petitioner as well as the submissions made, petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 17.08.2020

Parole/Temporary release – Right of -- Divisional Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application for temporary release/parole, on the grounds that the trial Court by an order awarded her a sentence of imprisonment for life i.e. whole of her natural life, without any remission, consequent to her conviction for the offences u/s 302, 343 and 120-B of the IPC -- Divisional Commissioner’s order is legally unsustainable and set aside -- Petitioner’s application for parole remitted to the Divisional Commissioner to consider afresh in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.08.2020

POCSO case -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 07.12.2019 -- 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 -- Petitioner is admitted to bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

Snatching of mobile phone – Regular bail – Submission that it remained unexplained as to from which sources, the complainant came to know about the names of the persons, who had allegedly snatched his mobile phone – Petitioners remained behind bars for about 3 months – Challan already stands presented – Interim directions pertaining to grant of interim bail made absolute.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.12.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.11.2020

Disclosure statement of co-accused -- Regular bail -- A mobile phone was recovered from the petitioner on the basis of his disclosure statement and nothing remains to be recovered from him -- Conclusion of the trial will take some time keeping in view the prevailing pandemic situation – Appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.10.2020

Regular bail – Out of three other cases, petitioner is on bail in two and in third case after conviction on bail in pending appeal – In present case only non-bailable offence u/s 379-B of the IPC -- An amount of Rs.3,000/- was snatched away from the pocket of the complainant by the accused persons named by him, which included 7 other culprits apart from the petitioner and it was not alleged that the petitioner alone was the one who robbed the complainant of this amount -- Long detention since 13.07.2020, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.10.2020

Disclosure statement -- Regular bail -- Snatching with hurt – 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 is not involved in any other case and the prosecution evidence is yet to start -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.08.2020

Regular bail – Petitioner sent obscene messages to complainant – FIR registered after six months of occurrence -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is in judicial custody for the last about five months and also in view of the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take some time -- Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.11.2020

Temporary release – Parole -- Old aged parents – Repair of house -- Conviction of petitioner u/s 22 of NDPS Act for 10 years -- Parents are of an advanced age and there is no one to take care of them at this old age and secondly, he claims that his house is in need of repairs -- Claim on both grounds has been verified by a Municipal Councillor -- Though expression “sufficient cause” as mentioned in Section 3(1)(d) of 1962 Act, has not been defined, but the reasons given by the petitioner for his release on parole will fall within the ambit of “sufficient cause” and therefore, his request is entitled to be accepted -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of six weeks.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.01.2020

NDPS case – Disclosure statement of co-accused -- Regular bail -- Petitioner provided 200 intoxicating capsules (Salt Tramadol) to co-accused -- Name of the petitioner was disclosed by co-accused and he is behind bars since 04.08.2020 -- Main accused has already been granted the concession of regular bail -- Trial of the case will take long time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.10.2020

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2020

Conviction for 20 years – Gang rape case -- 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 -- Sentence of applicant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

POCSO matter -- Rape with minor – Conviction for 12 years – 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 -- Further sentence of applicant-appellant suspended during pendency of the appeal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.10.2020

NDPS case -- Commercial quantity -- Conviction for R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1 lac – 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2020

Kidnapping – Conspiracy – Appellants facilitating procurement of Sim Card – 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.

(SC) Decided on: 24.09.2020

NDPS matter – Long custody during pendency of appeal -- Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 11.09.2020

Bail is rule and jail is an exception -- There is a difference between grant of bail u/s 439 of the CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentence u/s 389 of the CrPC and grant of bail, post-conviction -- In the earlier case there may be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception -- In case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there is conviction upon trial.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Cancellation of Suspension of sentence -- Death took place within 7 or 8 months and there is oral evidence of the parents of cruelty and torture immediately preceding the death -- Also evidence of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Respondent-Accused by the victim’s brother -- Respondent No.2-accused has not been able to demonstrate any apparent and/or obvious illegality or error in the judgment of the Sessions Court, to call for suspension of execution of the sentence. Held, in considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous -- Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail -- Appellant spent money beyond his financial capacity, at the wedding of the victim and had even gifted an I-10 car -- Failure to lodge an FIR complaining of dowry and harassment before the death of the victim is inconsequential -- Parents and other family members of the victim obviously would not want to precipitate a complete breakdown of the marriage by lodging an FIR against the Respondent No.2 and his parents, while the victim was alive. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender for being taken into custody -- The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Conviction for dowry death – Appellant is confined in jail from 15.12.2016 onwards and father of the appellant was diagnosed with pancolitis – Appeal pending before the High Court – Without going into the merits of the matter, considering the submissions and other material placed on record and further taking into account that the appellant is in jail since 15.12.2016, sentence suspended.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Principles to be adopted -- In view of mandate of Section 389(3) of the CrPC, the principles are different in the case of sentence not exceeding three years and/or in the case of bailable offences -- Discretion u/s 389(1) is to be exercised judicially, the Appellate Court is obliged to consider whether any cogent ground has been disclosed, giving rise to substantial doubts about the validity of the conviction and whether there is likelihood of unreasonable delay in disposal of the appeal.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Strong and compelling reason -- Court considering an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupled with other factors -- There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail, as mandated in Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 14.08.2020

Parole – Right of -- Long sentence undergone -- Appellant has undergone more than 24 ½ years of imprisonment – Appellant ordered to be released on parole for a period of 21 days.

(SC) Decided on: 22.02.2019

Right of -- Sentenced for life imprisonment till natural life without remission – Divisional Commissioner rejected the petitioner's application for temporary release/parole, on the grounds that the trial Court by an order awarded her a sentence of imprisonment for life i.e. whole of her natural life, without any remission, consequent to her conviction for the offences u/s 302, 343 and 120-B of the IPC -- Divisional Commissioner’s order is legally unsustainable and set aside -- Petitioner’s application for parole remitted to the Divisional Commissioner to consider afresh in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.08.2020

Apprehension of threat -- NDPS case -- Conviction of petitioner u/s 22 of NDPS Act for 10 years -- Petitioner involved in three other cases (NDPS), out of which he was acquitted in one case and in the remaining two cases, he was convicted and sentenced to the period already undergone and was ordered to pay fine which he has deposited – Likelihood of his involvement in similar offence while on parole is not be taken as an active and real apprehension of threat to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order -- Merely on apprehension, benefit of parole cannot be denied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.01.2020

Sufficient cause – Old aged parents – Repair of house -- Conviction of petitioner u/s 22 of NDPS Act for 10 years -- Parents are of an advanced age and there is no one to take care of them at this old age and secondly, he claims that his house is in need of repairs -- Claim on both grounds has been verified by a Municipal Councillor -- Though expression “sufficient cause” as mentioned in Section 3(1)(d) of 1962 Act, has not been defined, but the reasons given by the petitioner for his release on parole will fall within the ambit of “sufficient cause” and therefore, his request is entitled to be accepted -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on parole for a period of six weeks.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 07.01.2020

Hardcore prisoners – Last rites of father – Proviso do not prohibit the hardcore prisoners to attend the certain functions, as enumerated therein, for a period 48 hours – Petitioner released for 48 hours to attend the Bhog/Kriya Ceremony and also for performing the last rites by pouring the ashes into Holly Ganges at Haridwar, under proper police escort, so that he may participate in last rites/rituals of his deceased father.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 04.01.2018

Convict under TADA Act – Long sentence undergone -- Parole – Right of -- Appellant has undergone more than 24 ½ years of imprisonment – Appellant ordered to be released on parole for a period of 21 days.

(SC) Decided on: 22.02.2019

Anticipatory bail – Disclosure statement -- Only on the basis of disclosure statement by some of the apprehended persons / accused, the petitioner has been roped in – No recovery has been made from the petitioner, he is not involved in any other case – Petition allowed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.06.2022

Murder – Regular bail -- No specific injury attributed to the petitioner either on the person of the deceased or on the person of any of the injured -- Recovery of motor cycle has been shown from him -- It would be a matter of adjudication during trial as to whether the petitioner could be convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC – Petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2021 and the investigation already stands completed, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.06.2022

Parity with co-accused -- Co-accused granted bail – Same benefit cannot be declined to the petitioner unless and until certain differentiating facts are brought to the notice between the petitioner and the said co-accused -- As no differentiating fact has been brought to the notice, therefore the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2020

Recording of offence – 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 – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.08.2020

Regular bail -- Allegations that two persons in a drunken condition had slapped the complainant, taken away his phone and then called up his mother and thereafter the 3rd person (unnamed) took him besides the canal and did a wrong act with him -- A sum of Rs.5000/- and two mobile phones were also snatched – Initial allegation was against an unnamed person -- Complainant suffered a supplementary statement in which the name of the present petitioner has figured – DNA report of the complainant also does not support the prosecution version -- Petitioner was arrested on 18.11.2019 -- Trial is at the initial stage and would take time to conclude particularly keeping in view the current Covid-19 situation -- Petitioner held entitled to the benefit of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2020

POCSO matter -- Penetrative sexual assault – Regular bail -- Two prosecution witnesses including the complainant have been examined but 09 PWs are yet to be examined – When, the petitioner is in custody for almost 07 months; he is not involved in any other case; the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Petitioner is granted concession of regular bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.06.2020

POCSO case – Juvenile matter -- Regular bail -- Record or the circumstances of the case do not show that there is any reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is likely to bring himself into association with known criminals if released on bail; or that he will expose himself to some moral, physical or psychological danger – Policy and provision of the Juvenile Justice Act is in favour of grant of bail to the juvenile -- Since the circumstances or the grounds justifying denial of the bail are not discernible in the case, therefore, the petitioner deserve to be allowed concession of bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2020

Attempt to murder -- 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 -- 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020