'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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