#Section 120-B IPC

The Delhi High Court held that magistrates must independently apply their judicial mind before issuing summoning orders at the cognizance stage, upholding the summons against a director accused of diverting business proceeds under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC. This ruling reinforces procedural safeguards against mechanical issuance of process and affects magistrates, accused, and complainants in criminal proceedings.

Punjab & Haryana High Court holds that anticipatory bail cannot be denied merely for alleged non-cooperation if the accused complies with lawful investigation queries without self-incriminating. Custodial interrogation for recovery alone is insufficient grounds for denial, reinforcing the principle that pre-trial incarceration requires stronger justification than procedural non-compliance.

The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that mere allegations of expired cement supply-without evidence of a pre-existing agreement or fraudulent intent-do not constitute criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. The court emphasized that such disputes remain civil in nature, shielding corporations from unwarranted criminal prosecution where contractual breaches lack criminal mens rea.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to two accused charged only under Section 120-B IPC in a Rs. 12.767 crore corporate fraud case, emphasizing that conspiracy charges alone cannot sustain custody when there is no evidence of direct participation in forgery or document manipulation. This ruling reinforces that bail must be assessed on individual culpability, not collective accusation, offering critical relief to mid-level employees caught in broad conspiracy nets.