Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court

A Habitual Offender is Not Entitled to the Grant of Bail: Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Mohammad Rayyan Ansari, accused in a case pertaining to the sale of intoxicating tablets under the NDPS Act in Haryana. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, while pronouncing the judgment, emphasized on the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the necessity of custodial interrogation to advance the investigation.

The petition was filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail concerning FIR No.143 dated 18.06.2023 registered at Police Station Munak, Karnal, Haryana. Ansari was implicated based on a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, Pardeep, who revealed Ansari as the source of the intoxicating tablets.

The Court observed, “In fact, when there are multiple FIRs against an accused over a significant period of time, then the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he had not committed an offence and was not likely to commit an offence cannot be satisfied.” The Judge further noted, “a habitual offender is not entitled to the grant of bail even under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view his criminal antecedents.”

The State, through a status report, highlighted that the petitioner is also an accused in another FIR under the NDPS Act, and has a history of habitual offending, which makes the custodial interrogation imperative.

Various judicial precedents were deliberated upon during the hearing, especially focusing on the granting of anticipatory bail in cases where the accused is implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and has prior criminal records.

Justice Bedi, in his concluding remarks, stated, “Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, his custodial interrogation would certainly be necessary to effect recoveries and to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.” Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, finding no merit in the present petition.

Date of Decision: 21.09.2023

MOHAMMAD RAYYAN ANSARI vs STATE OF HARYANA  

 

Latest Legal News