JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

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

2. As per the custody certificate dated 25.04.2024 filed by the State, one case is pending against the petitioner, detail of which is as under:-

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial before the trial court, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, and within fifteen days of release from prison undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that the further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to any bail. The State's counsel further contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

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. 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history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included.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. Prosecution's case is being taken from reply dated 26.04.2024, which reads as follows:-

"1. That the deponent is posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Udyog, Gurugram and is swearing the present affidavit in his official capacity. The contents of the affidavit are based on the official record pertaining to case FIR No. 63 dated 06.02.2023 registered at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 7/13B, 8 of PC Act which the deponent believes to be true and correct.

2. That the petitioner, who is an accused in the FIR aforementioned, by way of filing the afore captioned petition, has invoked the jurisdiction vesting in this Hon'ble Court by virtue of provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking grant of concession of regular bail to him, being in custody since 07.02.2024.

3. That the factual backdrop of the case in hand is that the present case a complaint was submitted by one Praveen Kumar alleging therein that he was having 12 acres of land in Faridabad and the same was the joint ownership of the complainant and his two brothers. It w