Mukul Mathur v. State Of Haryana

     

  


 !"#$%$ &'
() *)
+, -) $ $ &.

/.%0% 1 ))))%2 &"&

' 3,1)1    , 









 


    ,4)5,6 







!"#

 $
%&
&

'('#




 
)

 


*+,
%

"-

(.

("

'('!




(#/ 0
#/-0
#- /'0
#- /#0
$% 
'('#



%1
2   3

  3 '

$





 




  
1


33
) 
3 


1
3 3 


*+,

#

4
 



 )3


 
)

3



 
 )3

 




3


1

 

3
33)


  
 
 )3
 


 1







 
 
)

 3
 
 
 )3




 3

1




1



 

1
 




3
1
 
33

3 
 )3


1


5 
3

1
33

3 


1   )3


 
3
3
)




 






1
) )


   )3



) 









 

 
33


 
 
 )3
 
*+,

)

3



 3
6 





)
1

!

%

3 -

4

 
1




 

 



  



) 


1



3






  
)
)
 )3





 

 

  
 )3



1
 


33


3





)
 





) 
3
 



 /



&

3 3 
 )3


 
3
&1



&

3



3 3


33

3 


1

 
1
 


 
3 
 )3




 

 


 
3
1

 








)


/0

 

)

3





3 
 
 )3 








 3

1

 



3


6

1

  






3


 

.

+



 




 
 3
)


6




  

 

+





1


 )
) 





33


  



)
 
3
)7
 




1
1



8 


3
* 


 

)



)




 )



 
6
3

1


1 33





)1

 


6









  3



1
 

)

/
0

 )

3







)
 
  

3
 


&1

 
9 
6




)

 3


 
)

 3

 



)

 

&



)   


3 



) 




 3






 




 
 
1
33

The petitioner is seeking bail mainly on the ground of his prolonged custody. 6
 



* 83
(


("
3
 



) 
)

 



 
)






  

1


 


 It is trite law that mere prolonged period of custody or the fact that the trial is likely to take time by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration are not sufficient grounds for enlarging an accused on bail, when the offence alleged is serious. Reference in this context can be had to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2004 AIR(SC) 1866, Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 242 and State through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 280(SC). :

29 
&

1





  


)
3





 2 





)






)

 


3

 5   ,6 ';

(!

'('.     0 <
&=> ?=% 0 <
)> ?=%