Ajay Kumar @ Ajju vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 11006 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
229
                                             CRM-M-34601-2022 (O&M)
                                             Date of Decision: 12.09.2022
AJAY KUMAR @ AJJU
                                                                  ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:      Mr. RS Gill, Advocate and
              Mr. Harmanejeet Singh, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. IPS Sabharwal, DAG Punjab.

                    ****

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)

CRM-33676-2022

Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Annexures P-7 to P-15 are taken on record, subject to all just

exceptions.

Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

CRM-M-34601-2022

Through this third petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail

in case bearing FIR No.13 dated 19.01.2015, registered under Section

379 IPC and Sections 379-B(2), 411, 392 and 120-B IPC (added later

on), at Police Station Garshanker, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

Status report by way of an affidavit dated 12.09.2022 of the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Garhshankar, District

Hoshiarpur, filed on behalf of the respondent-State, in the Court, is taken

on record.

                                    1 of 4

 229          CRM-M-34601-2022 (O&M)                               -2-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has falsely been involved in the present case; that initially the FIR was

registered against the unknown persons and that complainant, namely,

Balvir Singh, while appearing as PW-5 before the trial Court on

08.10.2021 failed to identify the petitioner as accused in the present case.

He further submits that the petitioner was initially granted the concession

of regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide

order dated 16.04.2015 and since then, he was attending the Court

proceedings regularly. However, due to some unavoidable circumstances,

the petitioner was not able to appear before the trial Court and absented

himself from the Court proceedings and was declared as a proclaimed

person on 04.01.2018 and later on re-arrested on 06.05.2021 and since

then, he has been in custody. Still further, it is submitted that as similarly

situated co-accused, namely, Davinder Kumar @ Rinku, Rahul Sood and

Satinder Singh @ Kala, have already been granted the concession of bail

by the trial Court, the petitioner may be granted such concession on the

ground of parity.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the

prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, does not dispute the

aforesaid factual position. He, however, submits that the petitioner is a

habitual offender with criminal antecedents, inasmuch as, 08 (eight) more

FIRs, had been registered and/or pending against the petitioner, out of

which 03 (three) are of the period during which the petitioner was

absconded. He further submits that the first bail petition preferred by the

2 of 4

229 CRM-M-34601-2022 (O&M) -3-

petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.08.2021 and second was

dismissed by this Court on merits on 10.01.2022 and since then, there is

no change of circumstance.

While controverting the aforesaid submissions made by the

learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Prabhakar Tewari vs State of UP and Another, 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal)

831, to contend that mere pendency of the multiple FIRs is no ground to

deny the concession of bail to the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This is the third bail petition preferred by the petitioner for

grant of regular bail. While dismissing the second bail petition on

10.01.2022, this Court had minutely dealt with all the pleas raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioner and since then, there is no change of

circumstance.

The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is of no help to the petitioner as the facts and circumstances of

each case have to be seen in totality, especially when the accused is

involved in multiple FIRs of similar or graver offences.

Indisputably, the petitioner had jumped the bail granted by

the learned trial Court. Assuming the ground for his non-appearance

before the learned trial Court as plausible, even then the fact remains that

during his period of absconding, 03 other cases have been registered

3 of 4

229 CRM-M-34601-2022 (O&M) -4-

against the petitioner. There is no denial to the said fact from the

petitioner's side. Moreover, enlarging the petitioner on bail would be a

threat to the security of the society at large as keeping in view his

criminal antecedents, he might involve himself in many more criminal

activities. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular

bail.

Above all, the ground of parity raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioner falls flat when read in conjuncture with the criminal

antecedents of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner had indulged

himself in three more cases of similar nature during the period, he had

absconded.

In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant the

concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

12.09.2022                                        (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
Aman Jain                                                JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned                :   Yes/No
             Whether reportable                       :   Yes/No




                                         4 of 4