The court held that prior criminal history does not automatically preclude bail if the circumstances warrant it, emphasizing the need for parity with co-accused and considering the duration of custody.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 395 and 412 - Bail application - Applicant sought bail after being arrested in connection with robbery - Co-accused released on bail, indicating parity in the case - Applicant has a history of ten other cases, three of which resulted in acquittal - Applicant has been in custody for nine months - Court finds applicant entitled to bail based on the circumstances. (Paras 5, 11, 14)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail include the nature of the offense, the applicant's criminal history, and duration of custody - The court emphasizes that prior convictions should not automatically preclude bail if the current case lacks strong evidence. (Paras 4, 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested in a robbery case where Rs.2,70,000/- was recovered from him and co-accused. Co-accused were granted bail, while the applicant's previous criminal history was noted but explained.

Findings of Court:
The applicant is entitled to bail considering the duration of custody and the circumstances of the case.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail despite his prior criminal history.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's previous history alone does not justify denial of bail, especially given the length of custody and the release of co-accused.

Result: Bail application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sameer Jain, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 185 of 2024, under Sections 395, 412 IPC, Police Station Milak, District Rampur during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Section 392 IPC against unknown persons but during investigation case has been converted under Sections 395, 412 IPC.

5. He further submits, as per allegation, during investigation applicant has been arrested along with co-accused Danish and Intekab Ali and from their possession the alleged looted money Rs. 2,70,000/- were recovered but after considering the entire facts of the case co-accused Danish and Intekab Ali have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.08.2024 and 04.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.27670 of 2024 and 24131 of 2024 respectively and on facts case of applicant is at par with them.

6. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having previous criminal history of ten other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of instant bail application and out of ten cases in three cases he has already been acquitted. He further submits, only due to previous criminal history, applicant has been made accused in the present matter during investigation.

7. He further submits, when applicant was arrested then he also challaned in other two cases and this fact again shows that police is highly inimical with the applicant.

8. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 10.05.2024 i.e. for almost nine months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. From the record, it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons with regard to robbery and during investigation when applicant and two other co-accused namely Danish and Intekab Ali were arrested then from their possession alleged looted Rs. 2,70,000/- were recovered but after considering the entire facts of the case in detail, both co-accused have been released on bail by this Court.

12. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of ten other cases but considering the criminal history which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that only due to previous criminal history police implicated him in the present matter during investigation, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

13. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 10.05.2024 i.e. for almost nine months.

14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

16. Let the applicant-Shafeeq @ Gatua be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document