JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. 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 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

3. Petitioner's counsel has drawn attention of this court to bail orders of other similarly placed co-accused, passed by this Court in CRM-M-33571-2022 and CRM-M- 43651-2021 on 23.08.2022 (Annexure P3 ) and 30.09.2022 (Annexure P4) 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 was 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history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included.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. As per paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 15.09.2022. Perusal of the orders dated 23.08.2022 and 30.09.2022, vide which co accused were 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 3 and 6 of the order dated 23.08.2022, which is as follows:-

"3. The complainant alleged that he and his associates work for finance companies, and when they were stopping those vehicles, whose installments were not paid, then at that time they noticed the accused in their car, which was financed by the complainant's company and whose installments had not been cleared. On asked to stop, the occupants drove away, on which the complainant party chased them and were able to catch, and on this, the accused brutally assaulted them.

6. The allegations clearly reveal that it was the complainant party who had chased the accused. Thus it is improbable to say with certainty about who was the aggressor. They may have acted in the right of their private defence. Thus, a prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, injuries inflict