Rajasthan High Court
Vijay S/O Raju vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5228/2021
Vijay S/o Raju, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Kachchi Basti Under
Hammir Bridge Bajariya Ps Mantown Sawai Mahdopur (At
Present Confined At Dist. Jail Sawaimadhopur)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Saini
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
09/04/2021
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR
No.17/2021 registered at Police Station Khandar, District
Sawaimadhopur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 380 of I.P.C.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
FIR is against unknown person. He submitted that there is
recovery of cash only from the petitioner and not of any
ornaments alleged to be stolen in the FIR. He submitted that in
other criminal cases, he has already been extended benefit of bail
and in absence of his conviction, the same cannot be taken into
consideration while deciding his bail application and, in this
regard, relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India
in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors, (2011) 1 SCC 694, wherein it was held
as under:-
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-5228/2021]
"112. The following factors and parameters can be taken
into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(ii)The antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any
cognizable offence; "
He submitted that since he has not been convicted in any of
the cases, the same cannot be considered for rejecting his bail
application. He, therefore, prayed for release of the petitioner on
bail.
Opposing the bail application, learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that five other criminal cases are registered against the
petitioner out of which, four are of similar nature and hence, the
petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
The judgment in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
(supra) nowhere says that antecedents of an accused are to be
taken into consideration for rejecting his bail application only if he
has previously been convicted by the Court in respect of any
cognizable offence. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has in case
of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP, in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Application No.1749/2011 decided on
29.03.2011 appreciated the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in following terms:-
"9. A conjoint and comprehensive reading of all
the above parameters laid down by their Lordships of
the Supreme Court would show that while considering
application for grant of bail of an accused, the nature
and gravity of accusation has to be taken into
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-5228/2021]
consideration, which observation was made in Para 112
(i) of the judgment in the context of grant of
anticipatory bail. As regards antecedents, it was
observed by the Supreme Court in Para 112 (ii) that
antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any
cognizable offence. If this sub-para is independently
analyzed, what was observed by the Supreme Court
was that antecedents of applicant has to be seen
including the fact whether he has been previously
undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in
respect of any cognizable offence. But this cannot be
read to mean that even in cases where antecedents of
an accused are so grave that he has been repeatedly
found indulging himself in offence of similar nature in
as many as 26 cases and though he may have been
acquitted by extending benefit of doubt, yet while
considering the application for grant of bail, can the
court ignore such an important factor? Moreover, in
sub-para (iv) of Para 112 of the judgment the Supreme
Court mentioned yet another factor to be taken into
consideration while considering anticipatory bail was
about possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat
similar or the other offences. Though this and other
observations were made in the context of grant of
anticipatory bail but all those weighty observations are
equally relevant for grant of bail pending trial under
Section 439 Cr.P.C., especially those in sub-paras (ii)
and (iv) of Para 112 of the judgment.
10. In view of aforesaid, it cannot be said that despite
repeated indulgence of accused in similar offences one
after the other and his involvement in large number of
cases on regular intervals habitually, the offender
should necessarily be granted bail just because he has
applied for grant of bail.
This Court has, in case of Vijay Kumar Meena Vs. State-
2008 (4) RLW 3041, held as under:
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-5228/2021]
"Although pendency of a criminal case as such
may not always be a bar for grant of bail, but if it
is shown that in spite of indulgence repeatedly
shown by the Court, an accused has been
continuously misusing such liberty and involving
himself time and again in similar and other
nature of offences, this may by itself be a reason
for refusal of bail. And that can be done if the
Court on the basis of material on record is
satisfied that the accused has been repeatedly
involving himself in so large number of cases
arid at such regular intervals, that he can be
safely treated as a habitual offender. Grant of bail
no doubt is an issue which concerns the liberty of
a citizen. But at the same time, if an accused is
shown to frequently and habitually indulge
himself in commission of crimes one after the
other and becomes a menace to the society, that
liberty is required to be balanced against the
larger interest of the society. Apart from merits
of the case, when it is shown that he has been
committing offences with impunity in such a
manner that letting him free would again expose
the society to the offences that such habitual
offender might again commit, the bail application
of such an accused can be refused on
consideration of his antecedents alone."
In the present case, the criminal antecedents of the
petitioner reveal that he is a habitual offender and misusing his
liberty of bail granted on earlier occasion, he is indulging in
offence of similar nature again and again. In these circumstances,
the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/34
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
