Section 147, 364, 302, 120-B, 149, 201, 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together – Failure of the accused, in a case based on circumstantial evidence which included “last seen together theory”, to explain u/s 313 Cr.PC as to under what circumstances the victim suffered death, would also not be a ground to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the accused were involved in the commission of the alleged crime.

(SC) Decided on: 03.11.2022

Section 375 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 164-A, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Rape case Guidelines -- Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna, (2014) 8 SCC 913 exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution issued interim directions in the form of mandamus to all the Police Stations-in-Charge in the entire country to follow: “10.1. Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. A copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be handed over to the investigating officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person till charge-sheet/report under Section 173 CrPC is filed. 10.2. The investigating officer shall as far as possible take the victim to the nearest Lady Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate. 10.3. The investigating officer shall record specifically the date and the time at which he learnt about the commission of the offence of rape and the date and time at which he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as aforesaid. 10.4. If there is any delay exceeding 24 hours in taking the victim to the Magistrate, the investigating officer should record the reasons for the same in the case diary and hand over a copy of the same to the Magistrate. 10.5. Medical examination of the victim : Section 164-A CrPC inserted by Act 25 of 2005 in CrPC imposes an obligation on the part of investigating officer to get the victim of the rape immediately medically examined. A copy of the report of such medical examination should be immediately handed over to the Magistrate who records the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.” Supreme Court gave suggestion to every High Court that the appropriate modifications/amendments be made to the Criminal Practice/Trial Rules incorporating provisions consistent with the directions issued in the decisions in Shivanna’s case (2014) 8 SCC 913.

(SC) Decided on: 01.11.2022

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 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR -- Dispute settled on civil side – Once the dispute has been settled on the civil side and upheld by High Court in RSA and the said judgment having attained finality, the criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue on the same issue as the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court is binding on the Criminal Court -- Complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed, qua petitioners.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 16.09.2022

Sections 109, 115, 116, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Partial quashing of FIR on compromise – Submission that petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife and that respondents No.3 to 5 have not approached the complainant to compromise the matter and prays for quashing of the FIR qua the petitioner only – Ld. SDJM submitted a report indicating that the parties had appeared before her and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise – Compromise is genuine and without any pressure or coercion from any corner – No useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of compromise.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 13.09.2022

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

Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of Charge-sheet – Compassionate appointment based upon forged degree – Role of Selection Committee -- Abuse of the process of law – Appellants are implicated, being the members of the Selection Committee, who without any verification on the assumption that the documents being genuine, recommended co-accused case for appointment – No prima facie evidence on record which implicate the appellants directly/indirectly connected to the commission of crime -- Not the case of the respondents that the appellants, in any manner, have facilitated co-accused either in creating or in fabricating the alleged forged degree for seeking compassionate appointment -- Criminal proceedings qua the appellants quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Sections 147, 148, 323, 302, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 386 -- Conviction in murder case -- Minimum sentence u/s 302 IPC would be imprisonment for life and fine -- High Court reduced the sentence to sentence already undergone (appox. seven years and ten months) – Punishment which is less than imprisonment for life shall be contrary to Section 302 IPC and is unsustainable – Judgment and order of High Court set aside – Judgment and order of Trial Court imposing the life imprisonment restored.

(SC) Decided on : 02.09.2022

Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 21, 22 -- Two FIRs – Quashing of Second FIR – Abuse of process of law -- Second FIR nearly four years after the first FIR – Multiple FIR by the same person against the same accused for same set of facts and allegations is nothing but abuse of the process of law -- Act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India – Appeal must succeed, FIR, charge sheet and the summoning order quashed and set aside.

(SC) Decided on : 23.08.2022

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

Section 406, 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 – Constitution of India, Article 20(2) – Cheque bounce case – Double jeopardy -- Two complaints on same allegations – One complaint for offence under NI Act and other under IPC on same set of allegation – Maintainability of -- Matter referred to larger bench to answer the following questions: (1) Whether the ratio of the judgment, in the case of G. Sagar Suri, (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao (2011) 2 SCC 703 lay down the correct law? or The view taken in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 621 as followed in M/s V.S. Reddy and Sons Crl Appeal No. 1285 of 2015, decided on 28.09.2015 which is subsequent and conflicting, lay down the correct proposition of law? (2) Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial?

(SC) Decided on: 11.08.2022

Section 498-A, 406 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal case – Permission to go abroad -- Considering that the petitioner is an Engineer, who had returned from Australia earlier, as also that he has an employment offer in hand, which stands duly verified, order passed by the Trial Court rejecting his application for permission to travel to Australia is not sustainable and the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, deserves to be set aside -- Petitioner granted permission to travel to Australia for a period of six months subject to the conditions -- In case the petitioner does not return to India within the time granted by this Court, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed in terms of the undertaking given before it.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2022

Section 302, 201, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Murder -- Conspiracy – Prima facie material -- Discharge of accused -- Only eye-witness is domestic servant present in the house of the deceased -- She neither in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. nor u/s 164 Cr.P.C. stated anything about the involvement of the appellant, rather she categorically stated in the statement that at the instance of the deceased, the wife of the deceased called the appellant for help and further stated that the appellant took the deceased to the hospital in his car -- Some evidence ought to have emerged or the prosecution could have brought on record some prima facie material whereby the appellant along with the accused persons had prior meeting of mind to execute the alleged offence -- In the given facts and circumstances, there is no justification for the appellant to undergo the agony of facing trial, to which the appellant is not even prima facie connected -- Impugned orders passed by the High Court as well as the Additional Sessions Judge quashed and set aside and the appellant stands discharged from the charges framed against him.

(SC) Decided on : 04.08.2022

Section 302, 201, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 228 -- Murder -- Conspiracy -- Prima facie material -- Discharge of accused -- There is no iota of evidence which, in any manner, connect the appellant with the commission of crime -- Neither the trial Court nor the High Court has even taken pains to look into the record as to whether there is any oral/documentary evidence which in any manner connect the appellant with the alleged incident of crime – Held, in the absence of even a prima facie material, oral/documentary, being placed by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, the trial Court as well as the High Court have committed serious error in framing charge against the appellant -- Impugned orders passed by the High Court as well as the Additional Sessions Judge quashed and set aside and the appellant stands discharged from the charges framed against him.

(SC) Decided on : 04.08.2022

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 307, 332, 353, 186, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 228 -- Framing of charges u/s 307, 332, 353, 186, 148, 149 IPC – Challenge to – Attempt to murder -- Intention of the party has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case -- Petitioners (accused persons) were not armed with any weapon and they only started pelting stones and one such stone hit on the head of complainant who at that time was posted as BDPO -- It prima facie shows that they were having no intention to kill any person -- MLR injury found was one lacerated wound 4x1cm on right side scalp, 10cm from right ear – Said injury was declared as simple in nature being caused with blunt weapon – Nothing available on record regarding use of petrol bomb – Trial Court directed to rehear both the parties and to pass fresh order regarding framing of charges.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

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), 506, 34 – Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 9 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Renewal of passport – FIR pending against petitioner -- NOC from Trial Court -- As per condition to appear in exam, the candidates must bring to the appointment a valid, non-expired passport meeting specific country issuance criteria -- Application declined by ASJ – Court concerned is competent to grant the NOC – Held, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has fallen in error in declining the request made by the petitioner – ASJ would take into consideration the submissions made by the parties and decide his application afresh -- Renewal of the passport at this stage is only for the purpose of requirement of the petitioner to appear in the said exam -- However, the same would not be deemed to the grant of permission to the petitioner to travel abroad -- Petition disposed of.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.06.2022

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – Case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings u/s 138 of the Act of 1881 and was subsequently arrested and released on bail -- Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person would prove to be insignificant inasmuch as the main complaint u/s 138 of the Act itself has been withdrawn -- Petition allowed -- FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.

(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

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s Section 174-A – Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.05.2022

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 08.04.2022

Section 406, 420 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 200, 210, 482 – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of process of law -- Inherent power of High Court -- Complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act pending -- After a period of three months, an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR – Ld. Magistrate declined to order registration of FIR and decided to inquire into the matter by treating the same as complaint case -- Ld. Sessions Judge remanded back the matter to the learned Magistrate with directions to pass a speaking order – Thereafter, after a period of two years, impugned FIR against the appellants with police station with the similar contents and allegations which were levelled in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C – Complainant is not proceeding further with his application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending since last five years – In the FIR, no reference of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act – Held, impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass the appellants -- High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice – Appeal allowed, impugned criminal proceedings/FIR registered u/ss 420/406 IPC quashed.

(SC) Decided on: 01.03.2021

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Compromise between parties -- Proclaimed offender/ person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Respondent/complainant withdrew his complaint -- In such circumstances, the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR registered u/s 174-A IPC are both quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 22.01.2021

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Warrant remained unexecuted as accused-petitioner shifted – Proclamation on same address – Legality of – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Settlement between parties – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Entire amount of the cheque in dispute stands paid -- Complainant does not have any objection, in case, the impugned order and FIR are quashed -- Once there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the main petition u/s 138 of N.I. Act, wherein accused was declared as a proclaimed person, stands withdrawn, proceedings u/s 174-A IPC cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned order and FIR u/s 174-A, IPC quashed along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.01.2021

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Settlement of complaint – Quashing of FIR -- Since the complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act has been withdrawn, the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has become redundant -- Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforementioned FIR alive -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom

(P&H HC) Decided on: 28.12.2020

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Petitioner had challenged the order, whereby he was declarednc as proclaimed offender and he was allowed interim bail and later the petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had been granted bail – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner u/s 174-A would be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all consequential proceedings, arising therefrom,

(P&H HC) Decided on: 23.12.2020

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 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act withdrawn – Order declaring proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Sustainability of -- 'No Due Certificate' issued by the Bank shows that the entire loan amount outstanding in the name of petitioner stood cleared – Thereupon, the Bank withdrew the complaint -- In such a situation, neither the impugned order nor the consequential FIR can be sustained -- Continuation of proceedings u/s 174-A, IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed, impugned order and the FIR quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.10.2020

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

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Compromise in complaint -- Quashing of FIR -- Considering the fact that the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act was compromised and later on the same was withdrawn -- Petitioner has also shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court -- Service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioner and he was not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, the petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on -- Petition allowed FIR u/s Section 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed. Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3) L.A.R. 584 relied.

(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

Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 -- Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioners have shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court as service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioners and they were not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, they compromised the case with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on – Petition allowed, impugned order as well as FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.02.2020

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 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender / person – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioner has undergone substantive sentence in the proceedings u/s 138 of the N. I. Act -- Petitioner made the payment to the complainant who entered into a compromise with the petitioner after his claim was satisfied, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him – Both F.I.R.s registered u/s 174-A IPC are hereby quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

(P&H HC) Reserved on : 17.05.2019 Pronounced on : 21.05.2019

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

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Non-appearance of the petitioner before Ld. Trial Court is justified for the reason that he was not served at the given address -- After passing of the order, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail -- Matter compromised, complainant has withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of the NIA Act -- Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of process of law – Order declaring proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 26.10.2017

Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was stated to have not been served at the address, where he was residing -- After the passing of the impugned order declaring him as a proclaimed person, he had surrendered before the trial Court and was ordered to be released on bail -- In such circumstances, especially, when the petitioner has duly surrendered before the trial Court, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.09.2017

Section 41 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139, 141, 143, 147 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320(6) -- Cheque bounce case – Compounding of -- Liabilities created by Sections 138, 139, 141 and 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are in contemplation with an offence otherwise not contemplated by Indian Penal Code -- Therefore, Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would prevail over the scheme including Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.05.2017

Section 70 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 421(1), 431 – Cheque bounce case – Compensation not paid – Default sentence undergone -- Whether the compensation still recoverable -- High Court held that despite the fact that the default sentence was undergone, yet, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compensation was recoverable – Held, object of the legal fiction created by Section 431 is to extend for the purpose of recovery of compensation until such recovery is completed and this would necessarily take not only to Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. but also to Section 70 of the Penal Code – Judgment of High Court, upheld.

(SC) Decided on: 05.05.2017

Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438, 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – FIR u/s 174-A – Quashing of – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- Held, looking to the nature of the prosecution against the petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Act, it would make no difference if he allowed a chance to participate in the prosecution against him, without finding any fault with the trial Court's order -- Petitioner will have to furnish bail bonds with the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court and shall attend the trial with promptitude for its disposal in accordance with law – In that view of the matter, proclamation order and consequent FIR u/s 174-A of IPC are quashed under the inherent powers of High Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 31.03.2017

Section 420 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 177 – Dishonour of cheque – Place for Commission of offence –Territorial jurisdiction -- Remedies available to payee – Relief introduced by Section 138 of the N.I. Act is in addition to the contemplations in the IPC -- It is still open to such a payee recipient of a dishonoured cheque to lodge a FIR with the Police or file a Complaint directly before the concerned Magistrate -- If the payee succeeds in establishing that the inducement for accepting a cheque which subsequently bounced had occurred where he resides or ordinarily transacts business, he will not have to suffer the travails of journeying to the place where the cheque has been dishonoured -- All remedies under the IPC and Cr.PC are available to such a payee if he chooses to pursue this course of action, rather than a Complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act – Payee can always file a suit for recovery wherever the cause of action arises dependent on his choosing.

(SC) Decided on: 01.08.2014

Section 420 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Constitution of India, Article 20(1) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300(1) -- Double jeopardy – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Trial and punishment under Section 420 IPC – Permissibility of – Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. is wider than Article 20(2) of the Constitution -- While, Article 20(2) of the Constitution only states that 'no one can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once' -- Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. states that no one can be tried and convicted for the same offence or even for a different offence but on the same facts – Held in the case although the offences are different but the facts are the same -- Hence, Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. applies -- Consequently, the prosecution u/s 420, IPC was barred by Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.

(SC) Decided on: 01.02.2011