The gravity of the accused's conduct, the serious nature of the charges, and the attempt to overawe the State influenced the court's decision to deny bail.

JUDGMENT

G.S.Sandhawalia, J. - The present petition is second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.428 dated 18.11.2014 registered under Sections 107, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 124, 125, 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 332, 353, 383, 435, 188, 326-A, 436 IPC and 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (in short 'the PDPP Act'), the first having been dismissed as withdrawn on 13.11.2018 (Annexure P-11).

2. The primary reason which weighed with the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar while denying the bail on 05.09.2016 (Annexure P-10) was that the allegations against the accused were serious in nature regarding the charges which had been framed. Merely because others persons had been granted the benefit of bail, the principle of parity was not accepted keeping in view the number of persons involved and by noting that it was not possible to scrutinize the role of each individual and it would also prejudice the prosecution case since the State had projected the petitioner as having the main role in the occurrence.

3. Senior counsel for the petitioner has stressed on the fact that the petitioner has undergone actual period of 8 years, 8 months and 25 days since he was arrested on 20.11.2014 and has submitted that there are 463 witnesses and only 89 witnesses have been examined. It has been further submitted that out of the said witnesses, 142 accused are similarly situated as the petitioner and out of those, except the petitioner and his son-in-law namely Sanjay, all others are on bail. It is highlighted that the provisions of Section 15 and 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short 'UAPA Act') are not made out. Similarly, provisions of Section 121A IPC are not made out. It is submitted that there are two other FIRs bearing FIR Nos.429 and 430 in which he has been convicted. This also pertains to the same incident and the prosecution, in overzealousness, had alleged that there are several FIRs and he has been acquitted in FIR Nos.426 and 427. Thus, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is pressed into service and it is held out that the bar under Section 43-D(5) would not be attracted and reliance has been placed upon the observations of the Apex Court in the recent judgment in Crl. Appeal No.639 of 2023 Vernon vs. The State of Maharashtra and another decided on 28.07.2023.

4. State, on the other hand, has opposed the present bail petition while submitting that there were 5 people who had died in the incident, out of which, 4 were females and one minor child and damage was caused to the property. 11 persons had received fire arm injuries out of the 111 persons injured. 16 persons had received grievous injuries and the petitioner was the kingpin around whom the whole incident had rotated and he had failed to surrender in spite of the orders passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereby his presence in a contempt matter was sought to be enforced. Reliance was accordingly placed upon the provisions of Section 15 of UAPA to submit that there was usage of bombs and there was an attempt to overawe the State by means of criminal force and, therefore, it would amount to terrorist act. It was accordingly argued that once a prima facie case is made out, the provisions of Section 43 would be attracted and the person was not entitled to be released on bail if there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such a person is prima facie true. It was accordingly contended that fire arms had been recovered along with a bullet proof car and petrol bombs. The trial was taking place in a jail and if the petitioner is released, his supporters would ensure that the trial would not take place by crowding the Court Complex on the dates fixed and there are serious apprehensions that the earlier situation would be repeated. It was accordingly contended that the petitioner is a person of crimina