Rajasthan High Court

Ankit Tripathi @ Ankit Bachha S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:41720) on 27 September, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JP:41720]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 9388/2024

Ankit Tripathi @ Ankit Bachha S/o Shri Akhil Tripathi, Aged About
23 Years, R/o House No. 4-K-12 Mahaveer Nagar Third Kota City
Rajasthan. (Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail Kota).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Manish Gupta
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Amit Punia, PP
                                  Mr. Pankaj Gupta



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI


                     (Through Video Conferencing)

                                       Order

27/09/2024

1. This is the fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

filed on behalf of the petitioner. No material change is noticed

after rejection of the third bail application. The petitioner is

charged with the allegation that he along with accused Nandu

Shooter, Bunti Vardhan, Harish Meena forcibly barged into the

house of the victim and opened fire with the pistol they were

carrying in their hands, as a consequence of which, Balraj got

injured, he was evacuated to the hospital but succumbed to the

fire arm injuries. Besides the statement of Akansha Jadoun (P.W.

6) and independent witness Subham Bagdi (P.W. 4) there is

ample evidence on record to prima facie suggest direct

involvement and complicity of the petitioner in committing murder

[2024:RJ-JP:41720] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-9388/2024]

of Balraj. Of course, delay has occasioned in the trial but

prosecution party is not alone responsible for the same. The order

sheet dated 22.02.2023 of the trial Court revealing that even the

applicant Divyanshu Jadoun through Public Prosecutor moved an

application regarding unnecessary deferment of the cross-

examination. It was stated in the application that on every court

date, they come to attend the Court proceeding under police

protection but the course of completion of statement is

deliberately evaded by the defence.

2. A perusal of the record available further revealing that

lengthy cross-examinations viz 14-15 and more pages are done

by the defence party, though this Court is not making any

comment on it but precisely upon minutely going through the

record of the case it is felt that the delay is not occasioned on

account of protraction by the prosecution party.

3. The another aspect which is more grave is the criminal

antecedent of the petitioner as well as the other persons with

whom he alleged to have committed the crime. There are seven

criminal cases registered against him which includes three cases

for charge of attempt to murder. Looking to infamy of the

petitioner or for the other secret reasons, the State Government

has opted to keep him in a high security jail specially made for

detention of hardcore criminals, who are threat to the Society and

societal peace and harmony.

4. The co-accused Nandu Shooter is known for nefarious

activities and have several cases including one conviction in a

murder case. The prosecution witnesses examined so far have

stated in an unequivocal terms regarding active participation of

[2024:RJ-JP:41720] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-9388/2024]

the petitioner in committing murder of deceased Balraj and

therefore, as on date, in view of the material made available on

record, he cannot be absolved from the vicarious liability for

committing murder of deceased Balraj.

5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Neeru yadav Vs.

State of UP reported in (2014)6SCC 508 has propounded that

the courts of law should show reluctance in granting bail to the

accused who are having serious criminal antecedents. The

paragraph No.11 to 18 is produced herein under:-

11. It is a well settled principle of law that while dealing with an application for grant of bail, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration certain factors and they basically are, (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in cases of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses for apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. [See Chaman Lal V. State of UP[7])

12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee [8], while dealing with the court's role to interfere with the power of the High Court to grant bail to the accused, the Court observed that it is to be seen that the High Court has exercised this discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in catena of judgments on that point. The Court proceeded to enumerate the factors:-

"9. ... among other circumstances, the factors [which are] to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

[2024:RJ-JP:41720] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-9388/2024]

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the society; and that is why Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost two centuries and a decade back eloquently spoke thus:-

[2024:RJ-JP:41720] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-9388/2024]

"Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters[9].

14. E. Barrett Prettyman, a retired Chief Judge of US Court of Appeals had to state thus:-

"In an ordered society of mankind there is no such thing as unrestricted liberty, either of nations or of individuals. Liberty itself is the product of restraints; it is inherently a composite of restraints; it dies when restraints are withdrawn. Freedom, I say, is not an absence of restraints; it is a composite of restraints. There is no liberty without order. There is no order without systematised restraint. Restraints are the substance without which liberty does not exist. They are the essence of liberty. The great problem of the democratic process is not to strip men of restraints merely because they are restraints. The great problem is to design a system of restraints which will nurture the maximum development of man's capabilities, not in a massive globe of faceless animations but as a perfect realisation, of each separate human mind, soul and body; not in

[2024:RJ-JP:41720] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-9388/2024]

mute, motionless meditation but in flashing, thrashing activity.[10]"

15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history- sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.

16. In this regard, we may profitably reproduce a few significant lines from Benjamin Disraeli:-

"I repeat......... that all power is a trust-that we are accountable for its exercise- that, from the people and for the people, all springs, and all must exist."

17. That apart, it has to be remembered that justice in its conceptual eventuality and connotative expanse engulfs the magnanimity of the sun, the sternness of mountain, the complexity of creation, the simplicity and humility of a saint and the austerity of a Spartan, but it always remains wedded to rule of law absolutely unshaken, unterrified, unperturbed and loyal.

18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The annulment of the order passed by the High Court is sought as many relevant factors

[2024:RJ-JP:41720] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-9388/2024]

have not been taken into consideration which includes the criminal antecedents of the accused and that makes the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is the lancination of the impugned order.

6. Thus, in view of the availability of direct evidence and in

view of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and so also

observing that no material change has come on record after

dismissal of the earlier bail application, I am not inclined to

extend the benefit of bail to the accused-petitioner.

7. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant bail application,

the same is hereby dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J

Mamta/20