The court emphasized the need for judicious consideration of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail, taking into account the criminal history, gravity of the offense, and the accused's health condition.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

CRM-31978-2021

Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Documents at Annexures P-9 & P-10, are taken on record.

Main case

1. The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. As per bail petition and the response of the State, petitioner No.2 has following criminal history:

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and family. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that although petitioner No.1 had two criminal cases against her but in one case i.e. FIR No.354/2019, she has been acquitted. In the other case i.e. FIR 192/2021, although there is an allegation of cheating but the amount involved is only Rs.10,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is handicapped to the extent of 70%.

4. The contention on behalf of the State is that because of the conduct of the petitioners the victim committed suicide and they are not entitled to bail during trial. Learned State counsel also referred to para 7 of the impugned order dated 10.08.2021. The contention of behalf of the complainant is that given the gravity of offence, custodial investigation is required and the petition be dismissed.

REASONING:

5. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed,

While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioners stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

6. The case of petitioner No.1 is that she is a female and 70% handicapped. Given the accused's health and other factors peculiar to this case, it may be appropriate to afford the petitioners a final opportunity to course-correct. Thus, the previous criminal history of the petitioners is not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail. Furthermore, a primafacie perusal of paragraphs 4 to 9 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail. Regarding petitioner No.2, considering the limited role attributed to him, this Court is inclined to grant him bail.

7. 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,