The court emphasized that personal liberty must be balanced with societal protection, allowing bail after the reasons for previous cancellation ceased to exist.

ORDER :

(DINESH MEHTA, J.)

1. The present third bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with FIR No. 68/2016 registered at Police Station Salasar, District Churu for the offences under sections 302 or 302/34, 364 or 364/34, 120B and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’).

2. Applicant’s second bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.173/2023) was allowed vide order dated 22.08.2023. Thereafter, applicant’s bail was canceled by order dated 03.09.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.21/2024.

3. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant’s second bail application had been allowed by this Court on 22.08.2023 after extensive arguments and after considering the factum of pending cases against the applicant (30 cases). Thereafter, the complainant moved an application for cancellation of applicant’s bail, which came to be allowed by order dated 03.09.2024, essentially because the applicant was found indulged in another offence punishable under section 307 and 365 of the IPC (Sessions Case No.08/2024) during the liberty he was enjoying.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the above referred case, where the applicant was allegedly found indulged under Section 307 and 365 of IPC , has been decided and the applicant has been acquitted by competent trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.11.2024. He argued that when the reason for which the applicant’s bail was canceled had ceased to exist, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail or in other words the cancellation order dated 03.09.2024 deserves to be recalled.

5. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Advocate on the other hand submitted that acquittal in the above referred case is on account of the fact that the victim had turned hostile. He added that applicant is a habitual offender and has tampered with the evidence by influencing the witnesses, in order to support his cause.

6. Learned counsel submitted that in the meantime, the applicant has been convicted for offence under section 307 of IPC and under provisions of Arms Act, 1959 and has been sentenced to undergo 7 years imprisonment and prayed that his involvement in series of heinous cases disentitles him for any indulgence by this Court, as his release would be against the societal interest and the same would disturb the public tranquility.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is to be noted that applicant’s second bail application was allowed by this Court on 22.08.2023, on which stage, the factum of pending 30 cases against him, too was considered. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of the order dated 22.08.2023:-

“12. After going through the material on record and judicial precedents cited at Bar, this Court finds that the case in hand is a case different than the usual cases, wherein the applicant is accused of felony of committing murder; as many as 30 cases are pending against him, including the present case and one more of such nature and co-accused - Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

13. In the present factual backdrop, this Court is not persuaded to accept present application for bail simply because the co-accused - Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has been enlarged on bail. The large number of cases pending against the petitioner is reflective or indicator of he being a prospective threat to the society.

14. In the case like the one, which this Court is seized of, the liberal approach in granting bail cannot be applied. Applicant’s personal liberty cannot be given precedence over the need of protection of society from criminals.

15. Adverting to the merit of the case, which cannot be overlooked simply because the applicant has a criminal track record, this Court is of prima-facie opinion that chances of charges against the app