JUDGMENT :

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 14 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although, injuries were caused but the injured were discharged on the same day of their admission in the hospital. He prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and states that they would have no objection to the conditions, i.e., surrender of weapons 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 the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. Counsel for the complainant submits that he has voluntarily compromised the matter and he has no objection if this court grants bail to the petitioner. He further submits that the present compromise has been entered without any pressure or undue influence whatsoever.

5. State counsel opposes the bail petition and states that in case, complainant takes a contrary stand, the State has all the rights to proceed against him under Section 182 CrPC as well as under other provisions of law. He further submits that the petitioner is otherwise not entitled to bail because of massive criminal history and he is involved in 05 more FIRs, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

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 siffing 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 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.

8. As per paragraph 6 of the reply dated 09.04.2024, petitioner was arrested in the present FIR on 28.11.2023. Since the matter stand compromised and coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, injury attributed and 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