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

(SC) Decided on : 23.09.2022

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 -- No justification for the appellant to undergo the agony of facing trial – Order framing charge set aside -- Appellant stands discharged from the charges framed against him.

(SC) Decided on : 04.08.2022

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 quashed and set aside and the appellant stands discharged from the charges framed against him.

(SC) Decided on : 04.08.2022

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.06.2022

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

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.06.2022