Rahul Alias Chand v. State Of Haryana

          

  



    

 

 

"#$# %& '(#)  



') +#%,& '(#)  

& -. / 0 0 .

($% & 
 

    !    11111 0 .

/ 2.3

    "  

 #$%&'

()(%* #%+  , - !! !"

 ./
'#) 010)()(2 !  

 (%$* , %0$*#,

10*(,&' ()(%  "  '  3   

! ( 4!   ./
 5    

  3-     )+0)()(2  6 

   7     " ! 

!" ! !  6   5 6 4     5  

5     8
   !6       4   

  !  6 "

   6     7 6 " -

  " 5      

    ₹+0 )))9  "

! 7 8
   '&

 '0+)#))(0))))%$:0;  

       

₹+0 )))9   

 

      6 

   '&  

  " 

 < ₹#2 )))9 !

    

"    

 / ! 

6    

   "   6 !   % =             "           

0:0)()(2=       "    ./
 5  =

  !     

       )2      =        "   

  6- ! =    " 

   !  ! (2 4 !" 

 # Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of affidavit of dated 20.04.2026 in Court today. The same be kept on record. Copy thereof has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious

in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 23.03.2026 in Court, which is taken on record. 2 /    

 ! ! "  1 4     6       0:0)()(2  6 

 ! 6   

 
  

 

000(()(2>)+     6    "

<   / 

""   6-  6  4    &!   ""   6    "   !   4            

  !  ? ' ! !" " "!6 

-  "

   ?    !6   

 10        (%)%()(1 "

      

  

)2   

):  @  6 "

    As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in more cases/FIRs. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this

regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

                    



  6   

  

  : / 6"      )) 4+  "  !"  5   

    !"9 "

   = 

A93 !   6    

   

      "    "

A93!    

"

"6 !

 B *, 4      "!  *, 4    6 



    ! *, 4   "     "  * , 4      

6

" , 4         6   , 4  !     " /

 ! !> 9>

 

    !    "6     9/5!  , 4     

   $ /  "   



  6  "   "

A93!   

 "       6 !               9  "" 

 "  + >

! 0) ' !   "  "    <        00 

    "



!    

     

   

20 .3

 '(#)   ?  C - !9  D 9' C"B D 9'