Point of Law: Theft and Robbery - Bail Application rejected - A perusal of his criminal record reveals that he is a habitual offender and misusing his liberty of bail granted on earlier occasion, he has indulged in similar/grave nature of offence again and again.

ORDER :

SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11680/2021:-

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.51/2017 registered at Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 382 IPC and later on for the offence under Section 392 IPC.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case. Fie submitted that out of five accused persons against whom charge-sheet was filed, two accused persons have already been acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Baadi, District Dholpur vide its judgment dated 21.11.2020. Fie, therefore, prayed for release of the petitioner on bail.

3. Opposing the bail application, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge-sheet against the petitioner came to be filed under Section 299 CrPC and he was arrested recently. Fie submitted that the petitioner will face separate trial and he cannot avail benefit of judgment dated 21.11.2020. Fie submitted that eleven other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner under various provisions of Indian Penal Code including Sections 307, 395, 384 or 382 IPC. Fie, therefore, prayed for rejection of the bail application.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. The petitioner cannot be extended benefit of bail on the premise of acquittal of two of the accused persons under separate trial. Indisputably, charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed under Section 299 CrPC and he has been arrested recently and will face separate trial. A perusal of his criminal record reveals that he is a habitual offender and misusing his liberty of bail granted on earlier occasion, he has indulged in similar/grave nature of offence again and again. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Vijay Kumar Meena Vs. State-2008 (4) RLW 3041, held as under:

“Although pendency of a criminal case as such may not always be a bar for grant of bail, but if it is shown that in spite of indulgence repeatedly shown by the Court, an accused has been continuously misusing such liberty and involving himself time and again in similar and other nature of offences, this may by itself be a reason for refusal of bail. And that can be done if the Court on the basis of material on record is satisfied that the accused has been repeatedly involving himself in so large number of cases arid at such regular intervals, that he can be safely treated as a habitual offender. Grant of bail no doubt is an issue which concerns the liberty of a citizen. But at the same time, if an accused is shown to frequently and habitually indulge himself in commission of crimes one after the other and becomes a menace to the society, that liberty is required to be balanced against the larger interest of the society. Apart from merits of the case, when it is shown that he has been committing offences with impunity in such a manner that letting him free would again expose the society to the offences that such habitual offender might again commit, the bail application of such an accused can be refused on consideration of his antecedents alone.”

6. In view of seriousness and gravity of allegations against the petitioner, the material contained in the case diary and he being a habitual offender; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. The bail application is dismissed accordingly.

SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11233/2021:-

8. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0066/2019 registered at Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 143, 323, 341, 307 & 382 IPC and later on for the offence under Section 323, 341, 382 & 307 IPC.

9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that injur