IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – A person having chequered criminal history, cannot be granted bail.

JUDGMENT

G. Satapathy, J.—This is an application U/S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(in short, “CrPC”) by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Markat Nagar PS Case No.229 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1572 of 2020 pending in the file of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.386/387/120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-A)/25(1-AA)/25(1- B) of Arms Act, on the main allegation of demanding extortion money and possessing unauthorized firearms and live ammunition in their house.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Chandan Samanataray, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners have been made as accused persons in this case, but the seizure was made in Choudwar P.S. Case No.594 of 2020, and therefore, the present case registered against the present petitioners is not maintainable. Mr. Samantaray by relying upon the forensic report further submits that even at the worst, the weapon seized in this case being not unauthorized weapon, the offences prescribed under Section 25(1-AA) of Arms Act is not attracted against the petitioners and the petitioners having already been detained in custody for a substantial period of ten years may kindly be granted bail.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned special counsel engaged in this case opposes the bail application of the petitioners by contending, inter alia that the petitioners are not only the history- sheeters, but also they have got past convictions. Mr. Nayak further submits that the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 25(1-AA) of Arms Act is not less than 10 years, but may extend up to imprisonment for life, however, the present petitioners being convicted for Arms Act, their punishment may be doubled on conviction in this case for the offences under Arms Act in view of the provision of Section 31 of the Arms Act, and therefore, the bail application of the petitioners may kindly be rejected.

4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of the records, there appears allegation against the petitioners for possessing arms and live ammunitions and the certified copy of the depositions of witnesses P.Ws.3 & 5, who are the police personnel as supplied by learned counsel for the petitioners reveal about the aforesaid two witnesses deposing against the petitioners by supporting the prosecution allegation. Further, it is not in dispute that petitioner no.1-Susanta Kumar Dhalasamanta has been convicted in two criminal cases and is accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years in one criminal case and imprisonment for five years in another criminal case. Similarly, the comprehensive affidavit filed by petitioner no.2-Susil Kumar Dhalasamanta reveals about his conviction in one criminal case with sentence to undergo imprisonment for seven years therein. Besides, there are series of criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners. What should be the consideration for grant bail has been elucidated in a plethora of decisions, but in addition to such factors for consideration of bail application, the criminal antecedents of an accused cannot be brushed lightly as it has got definite impact on the society. In this regard, this Court is fortified with the decision of the Apex Court in Neeru Yadav vrs- State of Utter Pradesh & another; (2014) 16 SCC 508, wherein at Paragraph-17, it has been held as follows:-

“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the 2nd respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinize every aspect and not capriciously record that the 2nd respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order clearly exposes the non- application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been bro