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)

Criminal Procedure Code – Registration of FIR – Non-compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed without first approaching police authorities and without supporting affidavits – Held, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable only after following the procedure under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – Impugned orders and FIR quashed. [Para 18]

Judicial Mind – Speaking Order – Orders passed without application of judicial mind – Magistrate required to verify veracity of allegations before directing registration of FIR – Impugned orders show no reflection of application of mind – Orders not sustainable. [Para 24]

Concealment of Facts – Complainant concealed fact of pending appeal against civil court decree to gain advantage – Held, complainant not entitled to relief for not approaching court with clean hands – Impugned orders and FIR quashed. [Para 24]

Service conditions of officers and servants of High Court – Primacy of Chief Justice – Enhancement of retirement age – Proposal to enhance retirement age from 56 to 58 years – Committee recommendation for enhancement of retirement age for meritorious employees – Government’s rejection citing parity with government servants’ retirement age – Jurisdiction of Chief Justice and state legislature to determine service conditions – Constitutional interpretation of Article 229 – Comity between institutions – Independence of judiciary – Need for deliberations and consideration of proposal – Remittance of matter for government’s reconsideration. [Para 10]

Article 229 of the Indian Constitution – Appointment and service conditions of High Court officers and servants – Chief Justice’s authority – State legislature’s power – Primacy of Chief Justice in appointment – Service conditions subject to state legislation – Constitutional interpretation – Comity between different institutions – Institutional integrity and independence of judiciary – Financial freedom and autonomy of judiciary. [Para 7, Para 8]

Kerala High Court Services (Determination of Retirement Age) Act, 2008 – State legislation determining retirement age in High Court service – Amendment fixing retirement age at 56 years – Proposal to enhance retirement age – Meritorious employees – Consideration of proposal by government – Need for proper perspective and evaluation – Protection of institutional interest – Remittance of matter for government’s reconsideration. [Para 10]

ervice conditions of officers and servants of High Court – Primacy of Chief Justice – Enhancement of retirement age – Proposal to enhance retirement age from 56 to 58 years – Committee recommendation for enhancement of retirement age for meritorious employees – Government’s reje

Quashing of FIR – Petition filed for quashing FIR No. 129/2021 registered under Section 363 of IPC – Cognizance taken under Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(n), Section 5(1)(j)(ii), and Section 6 of The POCSO Act – Petitioner and victim married and have a child – Victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. stating marriage and consensual physical relationship – Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR to prevent abuse of legal process. (Para 1-3)

Court’s observation – Victim did not allege forceful kidnapping and had a consensual physical relationship with petitioner after attaining majority – Marriage between petitioner and victim exists with a child – Continuing criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of legal process. (Para 5)

Court’s decision – FIR and all criminal proceedings arising from it quashed – Petition allowed. (Para 6)

Review Petition - Maintainability - Parties - Impleadment of parties - Whether the review petitioners were necessary parties before the writ court or the appellate court - Validity of office communication challenged in writ petitions - No challenge to seniority list or rights of specific incumbents - Private persons voluntarily impleaded themselves as respondents - Sufficient representation - Review petitioners promoted after judgment by Single Judge and aware of pending appeals - Opportunity to raise grievances earlier - Silence during litigation process - Lack of objectivity - Review petition not maintainable. [Para 23]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 114 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Right to seek review - Limited grounds for review - Discovery of new and important matter or evidence - Mistake apparent on the face of the record - Any other sufficient reason - Review petitioners aware of pending appeals and promotions subject to outcome - Silence during litigation process - Review petition dismissed. [Para 20, Para 21]

Fairness in judicial process - Litigation as a game of hide and seek - Duty of litigating parties - Conduct of petitioners lacking objectivity - Failure to raise grievances at appropriate stages - Review petitioners aware of proceedings and opportunity to be heard - Silence during litigation process - Review petition dismissed. [Para 23]

Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) - Examination of the accused - Circumstances not put to the accused during examination under Section 313 - Exclusion from consideration - Principles of natural justice - Opportunity to explain incriminating material - Judgments referred to in support - Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra and Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam - Accused entitled to fair chance of defense - Importance of audi alteram partem - Amendments to Section 313 - Purpose of examination - Safeguarding the interest of the accused - Dying declaration not put to the accused - Prejudice caused to the accused. (Para 65-76)

Importance of recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. - Safeguarding the interest of the accused - Amendment allowing court to take help of prosecution and defense in preparing relevant questions - Omission to put incriminating material to the accused - Doubts about voluntary nature and fitness of mind of the deceased - Failure to seek explanation on vital point - Prejudice caused to the accused. (Para 75-76)

Effect of omission to put a question to the accused on vital evidence - Courses available to the appellate court - Examination of the convict or counsel for the accused - Consideration of answers - Absence of prejudice or failure of justice - Retrial from the stage of questioning the accused - Remittal or decision on merits - Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra case - Non-compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. vitiating trial. (Para 72-73)

Decision  - Conviction based on written dying declaration - Accused not given opportunity to explain vital circumstance - Dying declaration not trustworthy and reliable - Failure to satisfy the judicial mind of the deponent's consciousness and mental fitness - Genesis of the case becoming doubtful - Failure to record incriminating material in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Prejudice caused to the accused - Acquittal and release of the accused - Benefit of doubt. (Para 77)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail in Economic Offenses - Factors to consider - Seriousness of allegations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of accused, possibility of tampering with witnesses, larger interests of public/state - Different approach for economic offenses - Bail to be granted judiciously within four corners of law - Discretion not to be influenced by arbitrariness - Need for prima facie case - Meticulous examination of material not required - Accused's high-profile position and potential influence on witnesses - Allegations of misconduct against public servant - Prima facie case of malafide excise policy formation - Denial of bail justified. [Para 62-64]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Liberty of individual - Sacrosanct - Bail and not jail - Grant of bail as normal rule - Economic offenses as separate class requiring different approach. [Para 55]

White-Collar Crimes - Alarming rise in recent years - Serious repercussions on country's economic structure - Economic offenses affect national economy and interest - Different approach required for bail in economic offenses - Grave offenses affecting financial health of country - Consideration of nature of accusations, evidence, punishment, character of accused, possibility of tampering with witnesses, larger public/state interests. [Para 56]

Judicial Review - Interference in economic policies - Court's limited role - Government's discretion in framing policies - Court's intervention if policy decisions alleged to be malafide or tainted by corrupt practices - Examination by investigating agencies and court required in such cases. [Para 59]

Discretionary Jurisdiction - Exercise of bail discretion - Judicial exercise within four corners of law - Discretion not to be influenced by arbitrariness. [Para 61]

Prima Facie Case - Existence of prima facie case required for bail - Meticulous examination of material not necessary - Material to show existence of genuine case against accused - Prima facie evidence in support of charge sufficient - Merits of case not to be delved into at bail stage. [Para 64]

Influence on Witnesses - Accused's high-profile position and potential influence on witnesses - Apprehension of tampering with or influencing witnesses - Consideration for denial of bail. [Para 61]

Serious Allegations - Gravity and seriousness of allegations - Denial of bail justified - Bail not granted on the basis of allegations undermining foundation of case. [Para 62]