JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

385

15.09.2022

Sadar Tauru, Haryana

379, 506 IPC

1. The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, have come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 7 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Dated

Offences

Police Station

1.

413

31.12.2021

379 IPC, 3/13(1), 8/13(3) HGS and GS Act

Sadar Tauru

?3. Lawyers have abstained from work.

REASONING:

4. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Cou