Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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