Rajasthan High Court

Raghuraj S/O Bharat Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 August, 2021

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

  S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11680/2021

Raghuraj S/o Bharat Singh, R/o Vill. Khirkari Atiraj Ka Pura PS
Sadar Baadi Dist. Dholpur Raj. (At Present Accused Petitioner
Confined In Dist. Jail Dholpur)
                                                        ----Accused/Petitioner
                                   Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
                                                                ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11233/2021 Raghuraj S/o Bharat Singh, R/o Vill. Khirkari, Atiraj Ka Pura PS Sadar Baadi Dist. Dholpur Raj. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Dist. Jail Dholpur)

----Accused/Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11298/2021 Raghuraj Son Of Bharat Singh, Resident Of Village Khirkari, Atiraj Ka Pura, Police Station Baadi, District Dholpur (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Dholpur)

----Accused/Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Amitabh Jatav
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

12/08/2021

(2 of 7) [CRLMB-11680/2021]

SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11680/2021:-

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.51/2017 registered at Police Station Kanchanpur, District

Dholpur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 382 IPC and later on

for the offence under Section 392 IPC.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he

has falsely been implicated in this case. He submitted that out of

five accused persons against whom charge-sheet was filed, two

accused persons have already been acquitted by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Baadi, District Dholpur

vide its judgment dated 21.11.2020. He, therefore, prayed for

release of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing the bail application, learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that charge-sheet against the petitioner came to be

filed under Section 299 CrPC and he was arrested recently. He

submitted that the petitioner will face separate trial and he cannot

avail benefit of judgment dated 21.11.2020. He submitted that

eleven other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner

under various provisions of Indian Penal Code including Sections

307, 395, 384 or 382 IPC. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of

the bail application.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

The petitioner cannot be extended benefit of bail on the

premise of acquittal of two of the accused persons under separate

trial. Indisputably, charge-sheet against the petitioner has been

filed under Section 299 CrPC and he has been arrested recently

(3 of 7) [CRLMB-11680/2021]

and will face separate trial. A perusal of his criminal record reveals

that he is a habitual offender and misusing his liberty of bail

granted on earlier occasion, he has indulged in similar/grave

nature of offence again and again. A co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in case of Vijay Kumar Meena Vs. State-2008 (4) RLW

3041, held as under:

"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 view of seriousness and gravity of allegations against the

petitioner, the material contained in the case diary and he being a

habitual offender; but, without expressing any opinion on the

(4 of 7) [CRLMB-11680/2021]

merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

The bail application is dismissed accordingly.

SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11233/2021:-

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.0066/2019 registered at Police Station Kanchanpur, District

Dholpur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 143, 323, 341, 307 &

382 IPC and later on for the offence under Section 323, 341, 382

& 307 IPC.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that

injury leading to offence under Section 307 has not been

attributed to him and hence, he may be extended benefit of bail.

Opposing the bail application, learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is of

committing dacoity along with co-accused persons. He submitted

that eleven other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner

under various provisions of Indian Penal Code including Sections

307, 395, 384 or 382 IPC. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of

the bail application.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

The petitioner is facing trial under Sections 307 & 395 IPC.

A perusal of his criminal record reveals that he is a habitual

offender and misusing his liberty of bail granted on earlier

occasion, he has indulged in similar/grave nature of offence again

(5 of 7) [CRLMB-11680/2021]

and again. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Vijay

Kumar Meena Vs. State-2008 (4) RLW 3041, held as under:

"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 view of seriousness and gravity of allegations against the

petitioner, the material contained in the case diary and he is

being a habitual offender; but, without expressing any opinion on

the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

The bail application is dismissed accordingly.

SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11298/2021:-

(6 of 7) [CRLMB-11680/2021]

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.98/2019 registered at Police Station Baadi Sadar, District

Dholpur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 342, 382, 323, 341 &

504 IPC and later on for the offence under Section 323, 341, 342

& 394 IPC.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he

has falsely been implicated in this case. He submitted that the

allegation does not constitutes offence under Section 392 IPC. He,

therefore, prayed for release of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing the bail application, learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that eleven other criminal cases are pending against the

petitioner under various provisions of Indian Penal Code including

Sections 307, 395, 384 or 382 IPC. He, therefore, prayed for

rejection of the bail application.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

A perusal of his criminal record reveals that he is a habitual

offender and misusing his liberty of bail granted on earlier

occasion, he has indulged in similar/grave nature of offence again

and again. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Vijay

Kumar Meena Vs. State-2008 (4) RLW 3041, held as under:

"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

(7 of 7) [CRLMB-11680/2021]

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 view of seriousness and gravity of allegations against the

petitioner, the material contained in the case diary and he being

an habitual offender; but, without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.