Bail should be granted unless compelling reasons exist, balancing the accused's liberty with victim protection, especially when the accused is a first-time offender.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.

The petitioner, incarcerated upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts of the case are being taken from paragraph 2 of reply dated 27.04.2024 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:

"I, Palender son of Satbir, am a resident of village Chhajjunagar and I have a restaurant at Bus Stand, Palwal. The accused Chirag, Arpit, Harsh, Polu, Gaurav and others have been threatening for last many days to give extortion amount of Rs. 50, 000/- on account of running the restaurant and they have also been extending threat to bear the brunt in case of non-payment of extortion amount. Today at about 2:30 noon I went to market to bring in some articles for my restaurant leaving my co-villagers Kuldeep son of Bijender and Akash son of Dharampal at cash counter. ALer I had left, the above said accused with a common objective had come to my restaurant and they started extending threat to Kuldeep and Akash. On their resistance, they started beating them and Chirag alongwith his other companions had fired into thigh of Kuldeep and others had beaten Kuldeep and Akash a lot while they were lying on the ground. While leaving, they had snatched away Rs. 8, 000/- of sale proceed and a gold chain of 2 tolas. They extended threat to kill in case extortion amount is not paid. The accused are men of criminal proclivities and other cases also stand registered against them. I fear the accused may also shoot me. Kuldeep is under treatment in the Hospital. Then a request to take action against the accused as well as to protect his life and assets was made."

4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that the petitioner is a student of 10+2, has no criminal antecedents and his custody is already more than one year. He further prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions including surrender of fire arms and is 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 custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. State counsel opposes the bail on the grounds that the petitioner is the main accused and had fired upon the complainant, when he refused to hand over the extortion amount.

Reasoning:

6. As per paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 06.03.2023. Given the nature of allegations, and injuries inflicted by the petitioner, viz-a- viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Furthermore, the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct.

7. An analysis of the above said arguments would lead to the following outcome. A perusal of the FIR points out that the petitioner -Arpit had allegedly fired on thigh of Kuldeep and prima facie it would lead to an inference about the petitioner's intention not to aim at any vital parts. Another important factor which needs consideration is that even Arpit was injured and although as per the State counsel the FIR was registered where the allegations were found untrue and was cancelled but certainly the petitioner will have a right to take up this point at the time of trial and the registra