Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of A.Y. Kogje, J. allowed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(I)(N) IPC and under Sections 3(A), 4, 5(L), 6, 7, 8, 11(6) and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

The cardinal fact that was taken into account was that the applicant was aged 24 years, unmarried and was a student whereas the prosecutrix was aged 16 years. The Court while allowing the application stated that by history narrated before the Medical Officer, the element of love affair could not have been ruled out and therefore the present was found to be a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail. [Harsul v. State of  Gujarat, R/Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 23962 of 2018, Order dated 16-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of A.Y. Kogje, J., allowed the application for bail sought under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for regular bail in connection with FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

The Court considered that there was no recovery or discovery from the applicant regarding the offence. No identification was carried out. Further, there was no evidence connecting the applicant with the offence. Basically, the opposite party was unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant. The court while allowing the application held that the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report were bald and thus it was a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. [Anil Bhawan Vaskeliya v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 38, decided on 11-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. against the order passed by the State Government whereby petitioner was suspended due to the fact that he was incarcerated in jail.

Petitioner contended that he had already been enlarged on bail and thereby there remains no reason to keep him suspended i.e. the ingredients to continue his suspension under Rule 4(3)(a) of the U.P. Government Servant (Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 1999 ceased. Also, there was no charge sheet served upon petitioner. Petitioner relied on the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 where it was settled that suspension should not be allowed beyond a reasonable period.

High Court was of the view that petitioner was suspended under Rule 4(3)(a) of the Rules due to his incarceration in jail and since he was enlarged upon bail and the factual position was changed, thus, suspension order could not have passed after his release. Therefore, petitioner’s suspension order was quashed. [Awadhesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 68, order dated 10-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of S.H. Vora, J., allowed an appeal made for granting of bail.

The facts of the case are that the appellant was booked for offences committed under Sections 306, 385 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2), 5(a) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Sessions Judge had rejected the application moved for bail in reference to this. Present appeal was filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court, considering the fact that the complaint filed by the complainant did not disclose any role against the appellant, the suicide note was silent and the FIR was registered after 27 days of delay, allowed the current appeal and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail. [Chintan Kaushikbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 23, Order dated 10-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of V.K. Tahilramani, Acting CJ (as he then was) and M.S. Sonak, J. declined bail to the applicant who was a convict for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

The applicant was convicted for murdering her husband. The murder occurred as the applicant was having an illicit affair with the co-accused. She was before the Court seeking bail. It is pertinent to note that earlier as well the applicant had preferred a bail application which was rejected.

Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate for the applicant submitted that there was no eyewitness to the incident and only evidence against her was of recovery. However, during recovery, the applicant was handcuffed and therefore such recovery can’t be taken into consideration. This was opposed by G.P. Mulekar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The High Court relied on Putlabai Bhimashankar Pattan v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 685 wherein it was observed, “…handcuffing a person by itself cannot be a reason to generalize the hypothesis that such a discovery cannot be reliable”. In view thereof, the Court held that there was no substance in applicant’s submission. Furthermore, no fresh ground was brought before the Court to necessitate reconsideration of applicant’s prayer for bail. Therefore, the application was rejected. [Poonam Bhagwatiprasad Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 7283, decided on 30-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mukta Gupta, J. allowed a bail application holding that the petitioner was entitled to default bail as the investigating agency failed to file chargesheet within 60 days.

The petitioner was alleged to be driving a white colour car at high speed without a license in an intoxicated state. On the fateful night, he lost control and rammed his car over the footpath. The car hit a tree and turned upside down. Four people, including the complainant and three other sleeping on the footpath, were injured. They were taken to hospital where two them were declared brought dead. The petitioner was arrested on 9-9-2018 and has been in custody since then. He filed an application seeking bail before the trial court. Besides the merits, he urged additional ground that he was entitled to default bail as chargesheet was not filed in the case. However, the trial court dismissed the application on the ground that it could not at that stage from an opinion whether the offence committed was under Section 304-I or 304-II IPC. Offence under Section 304-II IPC being punishable upto life imprisonment and 90 days from the date of arrest having not elapsed, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present petition.

The petitioner who was represented by R.K. Wadhwa, Vishesh Wadhwa and Meena Duggal, Advocates submitted that on the face of allegations, it could not be held that he committed the offence with any intention and at best knowledge could be attributed to him.

The High Court perused the record and observed that the facts of the case spoke for themselves that at best what was attributable to petitioner was the knowledge that his act was likely to cause the death of people sleeping on the footpath, in which case the offence was under Section 304-II. Such offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years. After referring to Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67, the Court held that since a period of 60 days has elapsed from the date of arrest of the petitioner and no chargesheet was filed by the investigating agency, he was entitled to default bail. Consequently, the petitioner was granted bail subject to the conditions imposed. [Devesh Kumar v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13073, dated 21-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sunil Thomas, J. refused enlargement on bail of a person accused of transacting commercial quantity of the drug.

Applicant herein was caught purchasing 10.202 kilograms of hashish oil and was arrested for committing offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He filed an application for granting bail. At the same time, the prosecution filed an application for extension of remand period. Pending consideration of the application for extension of remand period, petitioner’s bail application was adjourned. After the extension was granted, his bail application was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present bail application was filed challenging the lower court’s order on the basis of the decision in Rambeer Shokeen v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8504.

The Court opined that petitioner’s contention had become redundant since extension for his remand, granted by the lower court, had taken effect from the date of expiry of the first statutory period. In view thereof and in view of serious nature of allegations attributed against the petitioner of having transacted commercial quantity of the drug, his application was dismissed.[Vinish Kumar v. State of Kerala,2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5092, decided on 06-12-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, M.M. Shantanagoudar and M.R. Shah, JJ. allowed a set of appeals filed against the common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby it had allowed application for suspension of sentence preferred by accused persons and directed them to be released on bail.

The accused were apprehended with “manufactured drugs” and convicted by the trial court under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused approached the High Court. During the pendency of appeals, the High Court passed the judgment stated above observing that “manufactured drugs”, be it containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, must be tried under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred present appeals.

On perusal of the matter, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court was untenable. Analysing the objectives of the two Acts, it was observed, “while Drugs and Cosmetics Act deals with drugs which are intended to be used for therapeutic or medicinal usage, the NDPS Act intends to curb and penalize the usage of drugs which are used for intoxication or for getting a stimulant effect.” In the instant case, accused were found in bulk possession of manufactured drugs without valid authorisation. It was noted that Section 80 of NDPS Act provides that provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Reference in this connection was also made to Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande, (2014) 13 SCC 1. Further, it is prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law. In such view of the matter, the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the authorities concerned were directed to take the accused in custody. [State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar,2018 SCC OnLine SC 2651, decided on 03-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sureshwar Thakur, J. allowed a bail application owing to the vague and unclear FIR.

The petitioner has requested for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC wherein he has been accused of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.

The prosecutrix has alleged forced sexual intercourse being subjected to her by the applicant. But what has to be taken into consideration was the date of the incident which was 2016 also she was unclear about the date and month of the act. Plus from the contents of the FIR, the whole narration of the incidence does not seem forced but rather vague and nebulous. The Court also considered the fact that she was married but didn’t disclose the matter to her husband which again acquires an aura of falsity.

Accordingly, due to the weak testimony of the prosecutrix along with the fact that the applicant showed the fullest cooperation in the investigation, the bail application stood allowed. [Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh,2018 SCC OnLine HP 1702, decided on 28-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of B.N. Karia, J. allowed a bail application giving consideration to the previous record of the under-trial prisoner.

The petitioner had applied before the High Court for a temporary bail on the ground of attending engagement ceremony of his son.

The Court considered the trial record of the petitioner with due regard to the fact that he surrendered on time when he was last released on a temporary bail. The conduct of the petitioner for the time he has spent in jail was also found to be good.

Accordingly, his bail application was allowed with directions to visit jail once every week till the time he was on bail period.[Sakir Akbarbhai Mansuri v. State of Gujarat,2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1910, order dated 09-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Surya Kant, CJ. and Ajay Mohan Goel, J. disposed of a writ petition by directing the concerned authorities to provide legal aid with immediate effect to jail inmates.

The present writ petition was filed in public interest owing to the information gathered under the Right to Information Act with regard to the non-availability of legal aid to inmates of the jail. Also, some were undergoing sentences as they could not get enlarged on bail for want of legal aid.

The Court appreciated the efforts of the petitioner to bring to the Court’s notice the issues faced by jail inmates. Accordingly, the H.P. State Legal Services Authority along with the Secretaries of District Legal Services Authority was directed to visit the jail and provide immediate legal aid to the inmates in need of it within a week’s time.[Anil Bansal v. State of H.P.,2018 SCC OnLine HP 1617, order dated 15-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Birendra Kumar, J. granted bail to a person accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) having regard to the inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

The appellant was an accused in an offence that related to the carnage in which a number of persons were butchered to death. A case was registered against him under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 307, 120B, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Aggrieved by an order of the trial judge refusing grant of regular bail to him, he preferred the instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST Act.

It was noted that the report of the learned trial Judge revealed the case to be at the stage of prosecution evidence but no witness had turned up till the date of hearing of the present appeal.

Submission on behalf of the appellant was that he was not named in the first information report (FIR) and the informant in his further statement had disclosed the name of one Abhinash Sharma who faced trial and was convicted. Thereafter, there was no occasion to implicate another Abhinash Sharma, i.e., the appellant.

Considering the fact that the appellant had been in custody since the last eleven years and no prosecution witness had been examined during the trial, the court observed that it was highly unlikely that the trial would be concluded in the near future. Hence, the appeal was allowed directing the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000.[Avinash Sharma v. State of Bihar,2018 SCC OnLine Pat 2017, decided on 06-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sandeep Sharma, J. allowed a bail application due to full cooperation of the petitioner during the investigations.

A bail petition has been filed under Section 438 CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail with regard to the FIR under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC.

It was stated by the petitioner that the object of bail was to secure the attendance to which he was fully cooperative during the time of investigation and that at this stage nothing was required to be recovered from him.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, whereby relevance was drawn towards participation in the investigation and not absconding when required by the investigating officer. It further held that if the accused was hiding due to the fear of being victimized, the court shall take it into account and act accordingly. Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail petition but warned the petitioner that if he misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him the bail shall be cancelled.[Narinder Awasthy v. State of H.P.,2018 SCC OnLine HP 1592, decided on 15-11-2018]


Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of K.S. Mudagal, J. dismissed a criminal petition rejecting grant of bail to the accused petitioner who was a habitual offender and involved in around twenty other criminal cases.

The instant petition was preferred seeking an enlargement of petitioner on bail. The petitioner was caught by a few people while trying to steal a car; he was beaten by the public, admitted in hospital and arrested a few days later. The primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that arrest after three days of the incident and after his admission into the hospital raised doubts about his involvement in the theft. The respondent objected to the same contending that petitioner was caught by the public while committing the offence of theft and the report of investigating officer showed that he was involved in twenty-one other such criminal cases and was a habitual offender.

The Court observed that one of the factors to be considered in granting of bail is the antecedents of the accused. If the accused is found to be a habitual offender, then his bail application can be rejected. Since the materials on record prima facie showed the petitioner’s involvement in crime and the fact that he was a habitual offender, therefore the present case was held to be fit for refusal of bail.[Manikantan v. State of Karnataka,2018 SCC OnLine Kar 1822, decided on 02-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J., disposed of a revision petition filed against the order of the lower court, whereby the respondent was granted bail in a case related to the offences under Sections 457, 497 and 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code.

The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the lower court was justified in granting bail to the respondent.

One of the main contentions raised by the petitioner was that the respondent was a BSF officer i.e. he belonged to a disciplined and reputed force of this country and an offence of adultery committed by him on a woman, who was the school teacher, was an offence against the education system as well.

The Court observed that the offences under Sections 457 and 497 of the RPC are non-bailable. The lower court ought to have afforded an opportunity to the prosecuting agency to put forth objections before granting bail to the respondent, however the said opportunity was not given to the prosecuting agency and the respondent was granted bail as he himself surrendered before the court.

The Court held that the order passed by the lower court was not according to the law since it was passed without providing the prosecution an opportunity to place objections, as the offences for which the accused was charged were non-bailable offences. However, since a time of 6 years had already passed, the Court refused to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by the lower court.[Mohd. Ayub v. Sudesh Kumar, CRR No. 56 of 2012, order dated 30-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J., dismissed a bail petition filed by the petitioners under Section 497-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking bail in a matter involving offences under Sections 420,467, 468, 471 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006.

The main issue that arose before the court was whether the petitioners are entitled to get bail in a matter involving alleged offences of corruption and cheating.

The Court observed that the petitioners were alleged to have made back-dated appointments in lieu of money from the beneficiaries. The petitioners had made back-dated appointments and as such, it is an action which is covered under the category of cognizable offences. The appointments made by the petitioner were allegedly illegal, also some of the appointees were students and the others were running their own businesses. Another serious allegation that was leveled against the petitioners was that they have tampered with the records of daily wage workers and have replaced their names with the names of appointees who were given appointment by the petitioners. The Court relied upon the judgment of State of A.P. v. Bimal Krishna Kundu, (1997) 8 SCC 104, wherein it was held that arming an accused with a bail order, when serious allegations of corruption are leveled against him/her, would hamper the investigation and would also impede the prospects of unearthing all ramifications involved in the conspiracy. 

The Court held that the allegations leveled against the petitioners were quite serious in nature and hence granting them bail would not be the appropriate thing to do. Further, all the aspects of the matter require detailed investigation and for that purpose custodial interrogation is also required. Resultantly, the bail petition was dismissed.[Mohd. Kubir Malik v. State of J&K, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 788, order dated 03-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: An application was filed by the petitioner before a Single Judge Bench comprising of M.K. Hanjura, J., against the order where petitioner’s application for bail was rejected.

Facts of the case were such that petitioner was caught carrying banned contraband  Maxcoff-T Syrup and FIR was lodged against him under Sections 8 and 22 NDPS Act pursuant to which he was under arrest. Petitioner had filed an application for bail before Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge where the same was rejected and thus this application was filed before the High Court. The ground on which petitioner was seeking bail was that the substance found with him was an intermediate quantity of the contraband which does not come under the scales of commercial quantity. Whereas respondent resisted application on the ground of commission of a heinous crime against the society by petitioner.

The Court observed that the quantity required to constitute commercial quantity was 1 kg while the seized quantity was less than 1 kg thus not falling under Section 37 of NDPS Act. Further quantity of 10 gms is actually an intermediate quantity and the seized contraband was found to be falling under this quantity having punishment of 10 years imprisonment with Rs 10 Lakhs fine. Application of petitioner should have been considered under Section 497 of Criminal Procedure Code as the same did not fall under Section 37.  Trying to find the legislative intent behind Section 37 it was observed that the fact that such category of small, intermediate and commercial quantity was made shows that the category of small and intermediate is not at par with the commercial category.

High Court using its discretion well based on the foundation of laws found no reasonable ground for declining bail as the punishment for the alleged offence is not life imprisonment or death penalty. Therefore, bail was granted to the petitioner. With the observations made in this application, Court came to the question of whether the amendment incorporated in Section 167 J&K Criminal Procedure Code was rightly reflected and published in Volume 4 of Gupta’s J&K Laws 2015 edition. It states that the proviso added to Sub-Section 2 of Section 167 has been substituted by the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014 (XI of 2014). It was found that no such Amendment Act as Criminal Laws Amendment Act of 2014 (Act XI of 2014) existed but only of 2013 then too applicable only to few offences but was wrongly applied to all the offences. Therefore, the editors of the publication were questioned, whether they could have published government notifications as the same hampered few bail application where the wrong amendment was applied.  [Firdous Ahmad Payer v. State of J&K,2018 SCC OnLine J&K 742, order dated 17-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Anant S. Dave and Biren Vaishnav, JJ., allowed a regular bail application along with the order of the suspension of the sentence.

The present application was preferred under Section 389 CrPC for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 452, 118 and 114 IPC including a sentence for rigorous imprisonment for life with fine.

It was contended that both the petitioners who were convicts, were only seen abusing, instigating and giving fist blows, none of which constituted towards the injury conferred on the deceased or the injured person by any weapon of assault. Also, the witnesses present confirmed the same. Further, one of the cross-complainants was herself convicted under Section 323 of IPC and thus this version of the alleged allegation cannot be taken into consideration on the account of being untrustworthy. Hence the two incidences that took place on the same date and the nature of quarrel presuppose the involvement of both the parties.

The Court was of the view that the nature of testimonies implicated the petitioners for a limited role and prima facie, no clear or specific role of both the petitioners could be surfaced on record. Accordingly, the court deemed it just and proper to consider their case for suspension of sentence and grant of regular bail as prayed for and allowed the petition. [Kavlaben v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 1396, order dated 14-09-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajbir Sehrawat, J., dealt with an application under Section 439 of CrPC.

The accused was alleged with carrying psychotropic substance with him and FIR was registered against him under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985. After being examined by the Chemical Examiner the substance was found to be Alprazolam after which he was kept in custody. Petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated and denied the presence of any substance with him. His bail application by virtue of Section 37 of NDPS was rejected by Special Judge. Hence, application under Section 439 was filed before this Court.

Petitioner was in custody for one year four months and sixteen days before filing of this petition. Section 37(1)(b)(ii) contains conditions which should be satisfied by Court before granting bail.  According to this section Court requires to prima facie come to satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged against him. This section seems contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until proved otherwise. The second part of the section seems humanly impossible as the Court is required to record a satisfaction that the accused would, likely, commit the offence after coming out of the custody, or would not commit any offence after coming out of the custody.

Thus, Court observed that though this part of the Section seems unconstitutional, Court does not have the domain in this petition to deal with this issue. But observed that it had to comply with conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) before granting bail, therefore, Court dealt with the issue of Whether the procedure being insisted by the State; for its plea of denying the bail to petitioner; is non-discriminatory, rational, reasonable and fair procedure or not. Court was of the view that State erred in the same and after considering the conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) being fulfilled, bail was granted to the petitioner. [Ankush Kumar v. State of Punjab,2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1259, dated 09-08-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Arvind Kumar Mishra, J., addressed a bail application where appellant was alleged under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The instant application was filed by the appellant seeking bail in a Special Sessions Trial where appellant was an accused under Section 20(B)(II)(C) of the Act. It was contended by the appellant that Section 50 of the Act was not complied with, which was mandatory. He further submitted that the packet recovered containing alleged contraband was not weighed individually but entire quantity was weighed together. According to appellant, the informant-police officer committed various discrepancies while weighing the confiscated packets. Whereas, AGA argued that the record shows that mandatory requirements were complied with before search was conducted as it was the appellant himself who chose to be searched before police after which the packets were overall weighed on the spot.

The High Court was of the view that in light of the above facts bail cannot be granted to appellant. Therefore, the bail application was rejected. [Doli v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 3679 of 2018, Order dated 28-08-2018]