Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Manoj Alias Annu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-5638-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-09-2022

Advocates:
Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate for the petitioner(s)., for the Appellant; Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana., for the Respondent

The court's discretion in granting bail must consider the accused's criminal history and the necessity of imposing stringent conditions to prevent further criminal activities.

Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 439 - 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 326, 452 and 506 IPC - 61(i)(a) Excise Act - 307 IPC - [Summary of Acts and Sections discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 of CrPC in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Excise Act. The petitioner and his accomplices allegedly entered the complainant's home, resulting in a violent altercation.
Finding of the Court:

The court, considering the nature of the allegations, the petitioner's criminal antecedents, and the length of pre-trial custody, grants bail with stringent conditions to ensure the safety of the victim and witnesses.
Issues: Bail application based on criminal antecedents and pre-trial custody duration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is influenced by the petitioner's criminal history, the need for judicious consideration of bail petitions, and the imposition of stringent conditions to prevent further criminal activities.
Final Decision: The petitioner is granted bail with strict conditions to safeguard the victim and witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
176	19.7.2021	DLF Phase-III, Gurugram	147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 326, 452 and 506 IPC

2. In paragraph 12 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date	Offences	Police Station
1.	84	2021	61(i)(a) Excise Act	City Gurgram, District Gurugram
2.	222	2020	61(i)(a) Excise Act	City Gurgram, District Gurugram
3.	43	2020	307 IPC	City Gurgram, District Gurugram

3. On 18th July 2021, the petitioner along with his accomplices entered into the complainant's home, and the accused Ravi fired at him, however, he took refuge behind fridge, and after that the accused persons brutally thrashed his father.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. While opposing the bail, Ld. counsel representing the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

REASONING:

6. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

7. 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 petitioner 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.

8. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner was arrested on 17-08-2021. Given the nature of allegations, and the fact that the fire shot is not attributed to him, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody of more than one year and one month, (13 months), coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, he is entitled to bail on prolonged pre-trial incarceration, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.

9. 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 conclu