The main legal point established in this judgment is that bail decisions must be made judiciously, taking into account the accused's criminal history, the nature of the allegations, and the need to ensure a fair trial. The court has the power to impose restrictive conditions and must balance the accused's right to personal freedom with the need for investigation and protection of witnesses and victims.

Headnote:
IPC - Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149 (Sections 325, 326 IPC added later on) CrPC - Section 438 Indian Evidence Act - Section 27 Indian Arms Act - Relevant provisions The court refers to various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Evidence Act, and the Indian Arms Act in its analysis and decision. It discusses the legal principles and interpretations related to bail, criminal history, conditions for granting bail, and the power of the court to impose restrictions and conditions on the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner has approached the court seeking anticipatory bail in a case where he is apprehending arrest. The petitioner claims bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused who were granted bail. The state does not dispute that the allegations against the petitioner are not more severe than the co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court refers to previous bail orders and legal principles to analyze the petitioner's case. It emphasizes the need for judicious and reasonable consideration of bail petitions, taking into account the accused's criminal history and the nature of the allegations. The court also highlights the factors to be considered in granting bail, such as the possibility of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, and fleeing justice. It mentions the power of the court to impose restrictive conditions and the accused's duty to cooperate with the investigation. The court also addresses the issue of sureties and fixed deposits as bail options. It imposes various conditions on the petitioner to ensure the safety of the victim and witnesses. The court clarifies that the bail conditions must be proportional to their purpose and should not result in the deprivation of rights and liberties. It allows the petitioner's bail application with the specified conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for judicious consideration of bail petitions, taking into account the accused's criminal history and the nature of the allegations. It highlights the factors to be considered in granting bail and the power of the court to impose restrictive conditions. The court also clarifies that bail conditions must be proportional to their purpose and should not result in the deprivation of rights and liberties.
Result: The court allows the petitioner's bail application with specified conditions.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No	Dated	Police Station	Sections
183	12.07.2022	Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar	323, 324, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Sections 325, 326 IPC added later on)

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

2. In paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date/year	Offences	Police Station
1	199	2019	22 of NDPS Act	Sadar Amritsar
2	142 (not named in FIR)	2019	307 IPC	Sadar Amritsar

3. Petitioner's counsel has drawn attention of this court to bail orders dated 17.11.2022 passed separately in CRM-M-53052-2022 and CRM-M-53198-2022, vide which, co-accused Rajan and Gurpreet Singh @ Bobby Randhawa were granted bail respectively. Counsel for petitioner claims bail on the grounds of parity and does not press on merits .

4. State does not dispute the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are not more severe than co accused who were granted bail .

REASONING:

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The allegations against the petitioner are that he gave a datar blow to the complainant which hit on wrist of his left arm. Perusal of the order dated 17.11.2022 vide which co accused/Rajan was granted bail, covers petitioner's case on the grounds of parity for the reasons that they are identically placed. It is appropriate to reproduce paragraph 5 of this order, which is as follows:-

'The allegations against the petitioner are that he gave a dang blow to the complainant which hit near his ear on right side . On prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, injuries inflicted by the petitioner, and other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial or pre-trial incarceration at this stage. Furthermore, 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 5 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.'

8. 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