IMPORTANT POINT
Bail cannot be granted in heinous offences.

ORDER

Instant application for bail is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Arun @ Arjun S/o Ramniwas @ Lalaram in FIR No. 60/2025 dated 13.03.2025 registered at P.S. Mandhan, District-Kotputli Behror, whereby the applicant-accused was-charged under Sections 308(4) and 351(2) of BNS

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant-accused is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He further submits that after registration of FIR on 13.03.2025 for incident of 04.03.2025, police has completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the applicant-accused. He further submits that the statement of complainant was initially recorded on 08.03.2025 and thereafter supplementary statement of complainant were recorded on two occasions. He further submits that without any proper investigation, and recording statement of independent witnesses, present applicant-accused was arrested. He also submits that police has filed charge-sheet against 5 persons and kept pending against one person under Section 193 (9) of BNSS. He further referred order dated 16.05.2025 in respect of Udit Kumar, order dated 24.06.2025 in respect of Vinod Saini and Jaiprakash @ J.P., order dated 27.06.2025 in respect of Mohit Yogi and submits that 4 accused were already granted bail by the Trial Court and the case of present applicant is identical with them.

3. Learned counsel for applicant further referred judgment in case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradash 2020 AIR OnLine SC 96 and submits that the criminal antecedents is not sufficient to refuse fail to the applicant-accused. He further referred criminal cases shows against applicant-accused and submits that all cases were registered prior to 2022 and no new case was registered in last 2-3 years.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant submits that applicant-accused is main accused and he is having a criminal background and 10 cases were registered against him and he is in a position to create terror in the mind of people.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record also perused the judgment as referred by learned counsel for applicant.

6. On basis of complaint lodged by complainant Anil Purohit, who is a Saint against present applicant for threat to vacate Dham and demand of Rs.10 lacs, a case is registered. During investigation, the statement of complainant were recorded on multiple times, firstly, under the enquiry and later under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, a supplementary statement. One of the witness Naveen Kumar has submitted Whatsapp video, which indicate that present applicant-accused has visited Dham of complainant to intimidate complainant. Police has filed a charge-sheet against 5 persons including present applicant. Other accused Udit Kumar, Vinod Saini, Jaiprakash @ J.P. and Mohit Yogi were released on bail by the Trial Court under Section 483 of BNSS.

7. The material on record indicate that present applicant-accused is maln accused and there are 10 criminal cases against him and it includes FIR No.333/2022 under Section 302 of IPC as well. The nature of cases registered against applicant-accused indicate that cases relating to extortion, were also filed against him.

8. In case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradash (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered criminal background of an individual and held that at the stage of bail, grave and serious allegation and pending criminal cases are not the factors on basis of which bail can be refused.

9. We have considered judgment in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc. 2025 INSC 979, wherein after considering several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bail granted to accused persons were cancelled. It was held that the criminal background of a person is a material con