Parwana v. State Of Punjab
" #$%$ &'
(
)*+ "$&,' (
'
-. ( / / .
0 % & '
.
!"
#.
11111 / .
( 3.4
!
$%&
'
( ) **
+,+&-
.')/0 !
12) $& ,3,&+,+4
!
+35++5+6
)
" (
36%4-
.)"
/0-
+75835%4
! 0
!
! +
!!
12
!!
( +44
:
-9 ! (
0
& ;
!
( ,8,&+,+4;
!
(
<
!
(
! !( !
12 =
!(
;
!
(
)"
!
;
!
! !( !
12 =
;
!
!!
+44
9 ! (
!!(
!!
!=
(
)"
9 ! ( $ ;
!
(
!!
! !;
!
!! (
&7
;
! *
!
(
3+,4+,+8 >
*
4 2
!
!
!!
8
,8,&+,+4
!! +%,%+,+49
!
+&
:
!!
!
!
! !! * !
2
!! !(
+44 9 ! (
!!(
!
!=
( !
!
(
>
!
!!
(!
!(
=
(
!
(
9
!
'
!
!!
!
>
!
!
(
!)
!
* !
83
(
3+,4+,+8 ! (
!
!
! (
3 ( ,3
,7(?
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.
2
&7
! !
! +3
>
2
(
!
7 2
!!
! !
!5 (
;
!> 5" (
( (
!> 5"
!! (
!!
@ -
!!
( -
0
!!
(
!
(
! -
0
!!
! (
! -
0
!!
(
! ! - 0
!!
(
!> -
!!
!!
2
A
5 A
!!
!!
!> 52!!= -
!!
( (
!(
! -
0 9
!!
* (
(
!>
( ! !2
( !
12
!!
!
!
!!
% 2
(
( (
!> 5" (
(
!
!! (
!!
6 A
!( 3, )
!!
:
33
!! !
( !!!
3/ .4
(
* 5 @ C 5)
! @ C 5)