IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and the protection of the accused's rights.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 22 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

3. Case of the prosecution are that the present FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant namely Lukman son of Bilal, resident of Village Ghasera, Police Station Nuh, Mewat. The complainant stated that on 31.7.2020, he was going to Masjid Gurugram in a vehicle pick up registration no. HR-38Z-6280, having the meat of buffalo in the same. When he reached near the red light of Sector-5/6, nearly 10/15 persons came from the back side on 4/5 motor cycles and compelled him to stop his vehicle. Complainant was later taken by those persons towards Sohna. When they reached near jail turn Badshahpur, they started badly beating him and even the glasses of vehicle pick up were broken and completely damaged by them. Later, the police reached at the spot and the police officials took the complainant to Government Hospital, Sector-10, Gurugram in an injured condition. On this complaint, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342, 364, 427, 186, 353 of IPC was registered.

4. Petitioners counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions including surrender of fire-arms, and are also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fifteen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was granted interim relief by this Court, but later on that order was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 29.08.2023 and he was directed to surrender and to apply for regular bail.

5. By way of filing reply dated 01.04.2024 and custody certificate dated 01.04.2024, the State counsel opposes the bail and contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail. He further submits that the petitioner also violated the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and surrendered after the period granted by the Apex Court.

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. 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 ac