Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.438— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.409, S.420, S.466, S.467, S.468, S.471, S.120B— Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) , S.13— Anticipatory bail - Prayer for - Accused was aged about 64 years - He had allegedly involved in offence of embezzlement of scholarship of students - Plea of false implication - Accused was not employee of University - He had no role in admission process - He was not previous convict - One co-accused was granted anticipatory bail - Charge-sheet was already filed - Personal liberty under Art. 21 is very precious fundamental right - In view of such facts, accused was directed to be released on anticipatory bail in event of his arrest.

Constitution of India , Art.21— (Paras67)

(Para 6 7)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.439— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.406, S.420, S.34— Bail - Prayer for - Previously accused persons were released on bail subjected to deposit of 50% of the defalcated amount and rest 50% amount to be paid within period of three months from their release - On failure to deposit amount within stipulated period despite extensions, they were arrested - Thereafter all amount was deposited - There was not likelihood of their absconding or tempering with prosecution case - Conclusion of trial was likely to take time - They were ready to furnish adequate security and to abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by Court - In view of such facts, bail was granted subject to conditions.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.138, S.147— Cheque dishonour - Compounding of offence - Parties had resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them - As per compromise, substantial amount out of amount awarded by trial court was already paid - No impediment for court to accept prayer made on behalf of accused for compounding of offence - Matter was ordered to be compounded.

AIR 2010 SC 1907-Followed(Paras568)

(Para 5 6 8)

Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act (6 of 2017) , S.107(6)(b)— Appeal - Condition of pre-deposit - Even if demanded amount is to be paid before Appellate Authority u/S. 107(6)(b) of Act of 2017, appellant was required to pay only 10% of disputed tax amount in each order before Appellate Authority - However, by order passed by Single Judge, he has been asked to furnish bank guarantee qua entire amount demanded in three orders, which was against provisions of S. 107(6) - Order passed by Single judge was modified and appellant was permitted to deposit only 10% of amount assessed in each order.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India , Art.226— Medical reimbursement - Admittedly, there was policy of UPCL to reimburse amount of medical expenditure incurred by its employees for his/her treatment as also that of his/her family members - Grievance of petitioner that total amount of expenditure was not disbursed - In order to cut short controversy and to avoid further litigation, bills and vouchers submitted by petitioner directed to be placed before Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare within 15 days and according to Schedule applicable to government employees, necessary calculations be carried out by said authority.

(Para 9)