Anticipatory Bail - Freedom of Religion - Propagation of Religion - Limits of - Right to propagate religion subject to public order, morality, health, and other constitutional provisions - Statements promoting violence and justifying murder on religious grounds not protected under freedom of religion. [Para 9]

Seriousness of Offenses - Anticipatory Bail - Discretion of the Court - When considering anticipatory bail, the seriousness of the offenses charged must be taken into account - Offenses involving abetment of murder, promoting enmity on religious grounds, and assertions prejudicial to national integration warrant careful examination. [Para 11]

Interpretation of Statements - Religious Jurisprudence - Reference to religious texts and jurisprudence must be evaluated in context - Applicant's failure to cite specific verses from the Holy Quran raises concerns about the justification of statements made. [Para 8]

Prejudice to Public Order - Public Order Exception - Statements inciting violence and spreading hatred in society can be prejudicial to public order - Public order considerations are important in determining the exercise of judicial discretion for anticipatory bail. [Para 10]

Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail - In light of the serious nature of the offenses, the applicant's disturbing statements justifying murder on religious grounds, and the potential prejudice to public order, the Court exercises its discretion to reject the anticipatory bail application. [Para 12]

Designs Act - Registration of design - Prima facie case - Grant of interim reliefs - Plaintiff's design of ceiling fan registered on 8th September, 2018 - Defendant alleged publication of plaintiff's design prior to registration - Material placed on record indicating social media posts and invoices in public domain before registration - Court finding that plaintiff's design may be hit by prohibition of registration under Sections 4(b) and 19(b) of the Designs Act - Plaintiff failed to establish strong prima facie case for novelty and originality of design - Interim reliefs denied. [Para 25-26]

Passing off - Similarity of goods - Plaintiff's claim of passing off based on similarity between goods - Defendant arguing for something more than mere similarity - Court finding plaintiff failed to demonstrate false representation by defendant - Comparison of rival products showing differences in canopy, packaging, etc. - Plaintiff unable to establish "something more" for passing off claim - Interim reliefs denied. [Para 30-32]

Balance of convenience and irreparable loss - Plaintiff's arguments of balance of convenience and irreparable loss considered - Plaintiff's failure to establish prima facie case diminishes significance of these factors - Interim reliefs denied. [Para 33]

Observations in the order - Observations limited to disposal of present application - Suit to proceed on merits without influence from this order. [Para 34]

Prisoners - Temporary release on parole - Rejection of application - Grounds for rejection - Apprehension of engaging in illegal activities and breach of peace - Insufficient grounds - Mere conjectures and surmises - Violation of statutory provisions - Unsustainable order. [Para 17]

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 - Section 6(2) - Conditions for rejecting parole - Likelihood of endangering security of the State or maintenance of public order - Material basis required - Apprehensions without supporting evidence not sufficient - Need for proper consideration of grounds for rejection. [Para 16]

Bail Application - Interim Bail - Father seeking interim bail to meet his newborn child - Petitioner's wife delivered a baby boy, and she is unable to take care of the child due to weakness - Petitioner intends to make arrangements for his wife and child - State does not object to granting some relief - Court grants interim bail for a period of 45 days - Petitioner to surrender at the end of the bail period - Conditions imposed on the petitioner include furnishing a personal bond, restriction on leaving the jurisdiction, providing mobile number and location details, and surrendering before Jail Authorities. Bail Allowed. (Para No.5)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Anticipatory Bail - Allegations of bribery - Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in a case arising out of an FIR - Complainant alleged that the petitioner, a government official, demanded a bribe for clearing pending bills - Co-accused caught red-handed accepting the bribe - WhatsApp messages and CCTV footage indicating petitioner's involvement - Petitioner's acquaintance with the co-accused established - Petitioner released after initial interrogation - Court finding no special case for anticipatory bail - Petition dismissed. [Para 9]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 7-A - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 381, 120 - Allegations of bribery against government official - Co-accused acting as a mediator for bribe payments - WhatsApp messages and CCTV footage establishing communication and meeting between petitioner and co-accused - Complaint's bills cleared quickly after deal struck - Petitioner approving bills of the complainant - Credibility of prosecution version supported by evidence - No merit in petitioner's claim of false implication - Custodial interrogation necessary - Petitioner's potential influence on witnesses - No special case for anticipatory bail - Bail dismissed. [Para 1, 7, 8]

Rejection of application for temporary release on parole - Insufficiency of grounds - Violation of statutory provisions - Granting parole based on likelihood to endanger security of the State or maintenance of public order - Apprehensions without supporting material - Unsustainable order

Prisoners - Temporary release on parole - Rejection of application - Grounds for rejection - Apprehension of engaging in illegal activities and breach of peace - Insufficient grounds - Mere conjectures and surmises - Violation of statutory provisions - Unsustainable order. [Para 17]

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 - Section 6(2) - Conditions for rejecting parole - Likelihood of endangering security of the State or maintenance of public order - Material basis required - Apprehensions without supporting evidence not sufficient - Need for proper consideration of grounds for rejection. [Para 16]

Regular Bail - Grant of - Violation of principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation - Non-issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. - Mandate of compliance with Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. - Non-compliance entitles accused for bail - Dereliction on the part of Investigating Agency - Grant of regular bail warranted. (Para 7, Para 8)

Compliance with Mandate of Notice - Importance - Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. mandatory in cases where offenses punishable for seven years or less - Extension of notice requirement to other cases - Offenses punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years or extendable to seven years - Including offenses under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - Failure to issue notice to accused - Violation of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court - Notice to be issued to accused as per statutory requirement. (Para 3, Para 5)

Role of Investigating Agency - Duty to Comply with Statutory Mandates - Investigating agency bound to comply with the provisions of Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C - Mandatory compliance with directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar cases - Non-compliance to be brought to the notice of higher authorities - Appropriate action to be taken. (Para 6)

Regular Bail - Grounds for Grant - Non-issuance of notice to accused - Violation of principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar cases - Accused entitled to bail - Release ordered on furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of trial court/Duty Magistrate. (Para 8)

Merits of the Case - No Opinion Expressed - Grant of bail does not imply an expression of opinion on the merits of the case - Bail granted solely based on non-compliance with notice requirements. (Para 9)

Bail application - Grant of bail - Serious offense of kidnapping for ransom - Sections 364A, 365, 342, 323, 506, 120B, 34 IPC - Petitioner, a young man with no criminal antecedents, seeks regular bail in a case registered under various sections of the IPC - Prosecution alleges that the petitioner kidnapped the victim for ransom - Bail denied by lower court - Petitioner claims discrepancies and gaps in prosecution's case - Delay in filing FIR after alleged ransom calls, inconsistencies in victim's statement, and arrest procedure questioned - Court reiterates that seriousness of offense alone should not be the ground for denying bail - Purpose of bail is to secure accused's presence at trial - Prolonging imprisonment at pre-trial stage akin to punishment before conviction - Charge sheet already filed - No recovery required from petitioner - No evidence of petitioner being habitual offender or flight risk - Bail granted to petitioner. (Para 14-26)

Jurisdiction of Magistrate vs. High Court/Court of Session - Powers under Section 439 CrPC - Magistrate's bail jurisdiction regulated by punishment prescribed for offense - High Court/Court of Session not circumscribed by such limitations - Bail can be granted by High Court/Court of Session even if offense punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty. (Para 16)

Consideration for bail - Likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, or threatening witnesses - Personal liberty of undertrial not to be curtailed indefinitely solely based on seriousness of offense - Necessity for deprivation of liberty must be shown - Imprisonment before conviction has punitive content and should not be used as disapproval of former conduct or as a lesson - Case and defense yet to be tested at trial - Bail granted to petitioner. (Para 15, 18-22)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act - Conviction under Section 22(c) - Appeal against - Appellant charged with possession of contraband - Seized items included heroin, injections, and syringes - Trial court convicted the appellant and imposed sentences of imprisonment and fine - Appellant challenged the verdict and sentences on grounds of misappreciation of evidence - Appellant argued that the chain of evidence was not properly established - Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report lacked procedural compliance - Failure to re-enclose examined stuff inside cloth parcels and emboss FSL seals - Doubts raised regarding integrity of case property - High Court's analysis revealed gaps in the evidence - Court concluded that the charge against the appellant was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt - Appeal allowed - Appellant acquitted of the charge - Case property to be dealt with in accordance with the law - Appellant to be released if not required in any other case. (Para 1-21)