Virender Alias Basti v. State Of Haryana
!"#!
$% $& $&'
())!' ' *"!
!&! +!# ") )) *"*,"-!# " .)) /0 ) 1 2
!
"" # $
2 3 ) %
" & & #
'() * * "
+, - '..
/(01/102 0/134 /10 /0/ (1/ (15 ('0
,* 6 /2
!
" /
& #
(00/1/'
$
7
* !!
$
&
&
3 (
! # /(01/102
!
! & & " 8 " ! #
- 8 #
& "
!
- " & /'1//102 & 9
% :! 9 " # - 8 ;
< # #
!
!
&
!
& 9 % :! 9 # "
# ="
!
! ! %
> &
/(01/102 " # - 8 # "
"
- 8 &" & - & 1?/1 !
!
! &7 " !
#
!
-
1," % %%,3 5!&6 2$%$ $"# '7* *'6!
8! &*"& "
! * !
# ! &
# - 8 :! 9
" # ! ;
!< # 7 & !"
! @ "
# 9 % " #
! "" - 8
" # !
! # A" # '0 +, # "
! # #
B /(00/102 ! ! # ! &
! "
"$9 &*"
*:
!+!"#!
$;!&6 &*"
*:
!+ 1 "<63 $"# 1," % $$"
&*"
*:
1, $'
1 "<6 &
- 8 ! # ! " % # " & 9 % #
/(00/102 C
9 4
8 #
1.10/10. !
& !
" - /
" # 9 %
== 3 2$%$
!"#! ; < 6$"#$"
7"
" 8 7 - 8 9 4
! &
- 8
! , #
9 % 9 ; < * 8
" 77 "
9 %
; 9 < * - '/ :! 9 ! +, #
"
" B 0'10/10.
#
0/134
,* # B 021(/10.
* 9 #
"
! !
8
& !
!!"
!
- '( 9 % 7 977 9
&
&
#
!
0/1'/10. 6 1/15/10.
,
# "
C
7 9 7 9 % #
/015/10. * # " ! * " #
! %
!! B (0) * * :! 9 # !!
& *
1'1?/10?
"
" #
! " ! 1?
# & *
''
8 "! (01?/1/1 9 % :! 9
" - (
8 * #
#
# > '2 + 1(1'/1/0 #
# 8 "
/.15/1/0
B
"
! !
!
!
" " ! ! # //01/1/0 * " #
! //1//1//
(1 # & 02 & A! A
" 1?1//1/' 2 ,
&
& ! ! &
!
!
! +, &
!
&
# C
3
& > D
!" ! #
! !D !
&
!&
!
!
00 # ! " " 3#
+,
> C
!
1/ 1.
! & # & 7 7 " !
. C
" & & " - '
"
! " " " &
# " - 8 + # #
! &
"
" ! #
12
# #
!
! &
C
&! # & A! # & ! # !
8 " & 5 ,
&!
&
? * 9 % :! 9 ! +, & " # #
! -!
! ! +, , #
!
!
3
9 4
D 8
"
# !
- 8 ! !
! ! /(00/102 C
3
* 9
! " !
!!"
!
-
! !
# !
!
#
! #
! " &
! ! " - 2
) ,
&
" ! !
1?
! 1' &
1' & > , >
A! 02 #
+,
3#
& A! @3) "
/?1(/1/( !
"
&
*
& -
&"
>
@
*
& & ! & !
" & # 7 01 @
!
@ # !
3
& !
#
! ! 00
!
in the case of "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. & Another" 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 586, similar objection was raised before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was held as under: - "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
12.
Similarly in the case of "Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of UP and Another" 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: - " - .
"The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant materials. No ex-facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We accordingly sustain the order of the High Court granting bail."
13.
It is, thus, clear that the allegation of grave and serious offence or the pendency of several other criminal cases against the accused petitioner, cannot be the basis to refuse bail.
0'
"
"
! "
! 7 "
!
1/ 1. !
1' & #
!!" "
!
# ! &
"
& & E &
C % *
E "
!
>2 ?
!@ ,$ 9 .3 -7 % 8 @ 7"E FE-
@
& FE-
" - 5