Maninder Singh v. State Of Haryana
!"#$%"&'('#)*++ , +++ -., , +++ ,
* /0 + , ,
1111 , 2+
0
!" #$
!%!&' %( !%! ) *+ ,- . +/ 0 1 234,%4!%! .
. 5
6 !
7 2 .
.8. . .9 2 : . ! .
55* ; <5 2 ' ' :3;
5
!
%, !%! !%
!%!( 2 7. !
23 . ; 6. 8 2
& $ =
1
/ 1 .
+
.
. !
23
. . 1 #5 .++. . . 5 :3;
. 6
. 2 3
. .
29 %& %& !%! ) *+
=- (
2 5 > .6 6 6. 6 . . * 3 6 . ,
0 # 8 2
!"
#$% %& '' ="! 2 2* 6 . . 6
5 0 / 6 . " ! "
#$ ! " $ % $ # &$ & " & "#
& %
!
# # # " % ' " $ " $
# &&"
$
"
$
$ #
$ ( " ) & " $
& #
" & &
$ %
*+ + &" +
* "
" $ , &
" ! %
#
&
#
! # #%
#
$ ) "$%
$ $#
%
& "#
! ##
%
" $ %
!
# %
+ - $ #
+ " %
. 8.
In fact, a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was confronted with a similar factual matrix in %()
& ## '
' ' * 5 0/ / ?
2
"/!
0
##
1 2) 3,
# $ "4 5 !"
&$
" &
#"&
5 " " # #
& " # 4 ! $
#3633 $ ! " ! $ 7!8 # # "
4 5 #
" 9 $ #0 $ #0"#
# $$%
$
#$
# $
& " "
$ # $
#
$ 5 # $
$
# " "
5 $%
# $"4 &&# "
&
$ $
#
" 4 5
! ( !
, 7!8 #
&& "& "$$" 4 & :6& #
+
$ " 9
$ " $ #$
$ '
#
&
+ "# !" $ 7!8 , "
$ %#
"#"4
5 /.
< : @ 2 3 56
+, .
. 0 8 2 -
' "
*6 "# $ # $ 0 $ " " & # $ & # # ";$ &$ $ #
$ # $
$
.
! % $& 1
< ! /+## 012 31 4 = *7$ # $ " # $ *
3A
3 2 5. 6 . . .
. 6 6
2 * 2 5.* B
; < 5 2 :/;
3
2 B
.4 B
.B
3
6 B
2 'B . 2 .
!
* 2
2 . 6.
&
)- . )-
, 4562 $ )- > 54 ?4$ )- > ?4$