Parveen v. State Of Haryana
! "# $%"
!"#$ &
%&' ( (
) *+ ,-'. //0/-
1 2-
&/ -/23 + ( /-+( !4* 2+"
$ )
!
$ " #$
)$ 5$ 67 7#
(
!4*"
)
2 #$ 5 $ & (
$ --/&/& ) )$ (
( $5 7 )8 8
1
% 3 $ )2 *+5
68$ 3)
6 3 55 -9/0/- 5 $
'$ 5 5
- // ! 8 )$ 5
8 5 5 7 + -'/0/- 5 5
5
9 // : )
7 5 5 7 5 5 7 ///;2 5 $
8 + 5 )7 ) ,'9/-2&009< 5 5 5 = 8 5
5
5
7 )
$ > 5
=
5
<5 5 5 $ 5 )7 ; ) 5 ?
5 + )
5 ///;25
$ )2 *+5 )
5 $! 8 7: )
5
0 4
) $
*++
2 $ $ $ 7 5 )
)
+
)
$25
4
$ )$ $ ) +
) 1 5 =2 ) 5
)+
8
$ //0/- < )
) +
0 5
$ / 5
) 1
5 @20 68$ 5 5
$ 8 @295 + 1
7 $ 7 5 ) )$ 7
$ 4
$ ))$ $) )$ ( )$ ( $$
) ) .
)
$ 4
)2 *+
-9% (( 5
= > 5
5 )$ ) 5 )$ B 5 55 7
+
5 2 $: ) ! > ! > 85 //0/- $
5 )$ 2 $ > 5 ./0/-5
= 2 7)> 75 /'/9/-5
+
7)> 7 $ # 1 5 ) 5) # 5 )$
-///;2 2 + 7) 7 5 5$ )
) 5
*43 -./9/- 1 5 /&/'/-
1 2 5
+ ) > )$ 7)> 7 5 ) = )
2 $ 7)> 7: ) ! >! > 8 > -&//-
5 --/&/+
0
5
/5
) 1 5
$ ) 1 9 4
2
!
4
) +
) $ 5 5
$) 8
5 $ $ < $$ ) ' +
)7 5
$ )$
-/ +
> 5 5 '$ 5 *+5 5 ) $
5
5 > 5
=
0 5
/ 5
$ 1 --
;
5 < $ 5 $ ) ( A + $ 5
$ 8
3
$ 5
5$ ) ) $)$5
)$
(
= 5 ) )$ ( - )
$ //0/-< 5 my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot be released on bail solely on the basis of long incarceration in jail or on the ground that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; especially when the petitioner is being tried for a serious and heinous offence of murder of
$ > In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ PappuYadav, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"The condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of
offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitled the accused to be enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded, in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail." -&
@92 8
< $ 5
5
) )$ ( 5
5
$ ) )
$ 1 )$
) $ 7 $ 5
)$
5
)
) ) $ -%
5 $
7 5
)
)
=
$ #5 ( 1 -0 Nothing stated here-in-above shall be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition. -. ending application/s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. "'()*+&),)-
. / @ 7 ; C ;, @ ) C ;,