The court must balance the gravity of charges against the rights of the accused in bail applications, particularly when co-accused have been granted bail and the accused has been in custody for an extended period.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Petitioner sought bail after being in judicial custody since 01.02.2015 for offences including Sections 186/353/333/307 IPC - Seriousness of the charges, including an assault on a police officer and involvement in gang-related activity, considered by the court - Despite his history as a habitual offender, the court ultimately granted bail due to the long duration of custody and other co-accused receiving bail - Conditions for bail included a personal bond and restrictions on movement and contact with witnesses. (Paras 2-9)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The High Court or Court of Session must balance the nature and gravity of the alleged offence against the rights of the accused when considering bail applications. (Paras 7, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, known for past offenses, was implicated in a serious incident involving an attack on police officers while engaged in criminal activity related to theft. Investigation revealed multiple weapons and ongoing threats to witnesses by criminal elements associated with him. He had been in custody since February 2015 with ongoing trials of 44 witnesses.

Findings of Court:
Considering the principles surrounding bail and the specifics of the case, the court found sufficient justification to grant bail while ensuring conditions to prevent interference in ongoing investigations or trials.

Issues: The main issues were the petitioner's habitual criminal background and the need for bail in light of previous bail grants to co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the necessity to weigh the gravity of the allegations against the rights of the accused, particularly considering the long duration of detention.

Result: Bail granted under specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and facts (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's considerations for bail decision (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments for and against bail application (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. legal standards for granting bail (Para 7)
5. final order and conclusion (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been filed for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 48/2015 dated 31.01.2015, registered at Police Station Nabi Karim for offences under Sections 186/353/333/307/201/75/34 IPC.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant petition are as follows:

i. It was during the investigation of Case No.63/2015, Constable Ravi Kant, Constable Balram and Constable Jitender reached at Singhara Chowk, Sadar Bazar. After reaching the spot, the Constable Ravi Kant apprehended a person-Ajay @ Nathu@ Sunny (petitioner herein) as he had the reputation of a repeated offender. On apprehension, the petitioner-Ajay @ Nathu@ Sunny tried to flee from the spot by wielding a knife. A chase to nab Ajay @ Nathu@ Sunny followed which was being led by SI Nisar Ahmed. It is stated that Ajay @ Nathu@ Sunny ran from the police and alerted his associates that the police was out to nab all of them thereby hinting them to run and hide. During the chase, the petitioner gave a knife blow to SI Nisar Ahmed. The police team which was being headed by SI Nisar Ahmed opened fire on the petitioner in self-defence. Both SI Nisar Ahmed and the present petitioner Ajay @ Nathu@ Sunny were injured and were sent to the hospital for treatment.

ii. The petitioner was arrested on 31.01.2015 and has been in judicial custody since 01.02.2015. The Chargesheet in the present case stands filed. It is stated that there are about 44 witnesses which are being examined in the trial. During investigation, the scene of crime was seized- 9 bullets head, 9 mm empty cartridges, one live cartridge 9 mm, three empty cartridge 7.65 mm and one misfired 7.65 mm were found on the spot and were sent for forensic examination. A site plan of the entire scene of crime was prepared, exhibits of found items were made, sampled and seizure memos were prepared accordingly. It is stated that the knife with which the blows were inflicted was sent for examination. The co-accused- Dharmender @ Montu was also injured and was admitted to Lady Hardinge Hospital. The blood soaked clothes of Dharmender @ Montu were taken into police possession and were sampled and sent for forensic examination. During the course of the investigation, the Section 161 Cr.P.C statements were recorded of many of the constables and police officers who were present at the spot where the firing took place. It was found during investigation that the petitioner was an infamous pick pocket of the locality and had many cases of theft pending against him. Further, investigation revealed that the other co- accused persons were similarly involved in petty thievery and were used to snatch the belongings of people while riding a bike. Further investigation revealed that the victims of theft allegedly came forward and informed the police that persons of the description of the accused were goons in the vicinity and would regularly steal from the people.

iii. The accused persons have refused to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP). The co-accused Dharmender @ Montu had allegedly made disclosure statements to the police and similarly other accused persons also allegedly made disclosure statements.

iv. Investigation is complete. The chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet have been filed. There are a total of 44 witnesses who are to be examined during the trial and presently about 21/22 witnesses have been examined so far.

v. The petitioner approached the learned Trial Court for grant of bail and his prayer was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2021, whereby the learned Trial Court held that the role of the petitioner was distinct from the role of the other co-accus