Sukhwinder Kumar v. State Of Punjab

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner, in connivance with the other co-accused, allured the complainant on the pretext of sending his son to Australia, but instead sent him to Iran, and duped the ₹ complainant of a sum of 18,00,000/-. Hence, the present FIR. He further submits that no specific role has been attributed to

the petitioner and all the allegations in the FIR are directed against the coaccused namely Dheeraj Atwal and Kamal Atwal, to whom the alleged payments were made. He contends that the petitioner is neither a beneficiary of the alleged transaction nor is connected with the alleged offence in any manner.

She further submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple other FIRs, meaning thereby he is a habitual offender.

7.

As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in other/one more criminal case(s), reference is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382; in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."