The discretion of the judge in granting bail, the need for a cumulative consideration of circumstances, and the imposition of specific conditions for bail.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 19 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire money stands recovered and in the interregnum the matter has been compromised between all the three accused and the complainant. He further submits that this Court had granted bail to one of the co-accused, namely, Sandeep Singh @ Seepa vide order dated 03.02.2022 passed in CRM-M-2656 of 2022 and the petitioner is also entitled on bail on the grounds of parity because he has no criminal history. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. Ld. counsel appearing for the State contends that bail encourages criminals.

REASONING:

5. The parties have entered into an out of court panchayati compromise Annexure P-2, per which case has been settled. Whether such compromise contains sufficient averments for quashing of FIRs is not an issue at this stage. This court is concerned only with the effect of compromise viz-a-viz bail. Another reason for bail is that a co-accused stands released on bail. The petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraph 6 & 7 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

6. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In GudikantiNarasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held t