ANOOP CHITKARA
Rajesh Singla – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. -
FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
256 | 20.04.2018 | Sector 31, Distt. Fatehabad | 420 & 406 & 120-B IPC (Section 3 of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositor in PE Act 2014 added later on) |
1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.
2. In paragraph 27 of the bail petition, the accused declares there are criminal antecdents against him but he has not mentioned the detail.
3. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
4. While opposing the bail, the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.
REASONING:
5. 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 th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.