Satwinder Singh @ Maula v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 21.07.2022
Pronounced on: 05.08.2022 Satwinder Singh @ Maula
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 22.01.2022 Sadar Dhuri, 153, 186, 307, 323, 332, 341, District Sangrur 379B, 506, 148 & 149 IPC 1.
The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. 2.
In paragraph 16 of the bail application, the accused declares 12 cases against him whereas as per State instructions there are seven more cases against the petitioner. Overall petitioner has following criminal antecedents: Sr. No.
FIR No.
Date Offences Police Station 1.
17.06.2019 61 of Excise Act City Dhuri, District Sangrur 2.
26.05.2021 399, 402 IPC and 25 of Arms Act Dirba, District Sangrur 3.
------- Sherpur, District Sangrur 4.
22.05.2020 61 of Excise Act Sherpur, District Sangrur 5.
10.03.2021 61 of Excise Act Dirba, District Sangrur 6.
11.12.2020 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC Dirba, District Sangrur 7.
11.09.2021 22 of NDPS Act Dirba, District Sangrur 8.
30.05.2017 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 109, 120-B, 506, 34 IPC Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar 9.
17.01.2020 61 & 78 of Excise Act Sadar Patiala, District Patiala 10.
01.09.2018 21 of NDPS Act Sadar Khanna, District Khanna 11.
09.09.2021 397, 427, 506 IPC Garhi, District Jind 12.
27.11.2021 307, 459, 458, 326, 325, 324, 323, 201, Khannauri, District Sangrur
148, 149 IPC 13.
20.11.2021 61/78/1/14 Excise Act Moonak 14.
12.10.2019 61/67/78/1/14 Excise Act Moonak 15.
19.03.2017 379, 34 IPC Sadar Barnala 16.
14.09.2017 447/511 IPC Rama Mandi, Jalandhar 17.
24.06.2016 22/61/85 NDPS Act City Dhuri 18.
21.05.2020 61/1/14 Ex. Act Sadar Dhuri 19.
22.06.2020 61/1/14 Ex. Act Sadar Dhuri 3.
On Jan 22, 2022, the police officials raided the petitioner's house to arrest him, executing an arrest warrant against him in a case about Excise Act. The petitioner and his family resisted such an arrest. The petitioner allegedly tried to hit the police officials with an iron pipe, whereas the ladies in the house only attacked the police officials. 4.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 5.
While opposing the bail, Ld. counsel representing the State contends that given the criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail. REASONING:
6.
In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.
7.
The petitioner seeks bail on the grounds of parity with the bail granted to the coaccused. Perusing their bail orders reveals that they were granted bail because they were women. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the grounds of parity. As far as the petitioner is concerned, instead of surrendering before the police, he provoked the ladies in the house to resist his arrest. He was allegedly armed with an iron pipe. Given the gravity of the allegations, he is not entitled to bail at this stage. He took advantage of his previous bails and continued to appear in criminal activities. There is sufficient prima facie evidence of his involvement, and he is not entitled to bail at this
stage.
8.
An analysis of the allegations coupled with the previous criminal antecedents; the petitionerdoes not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail. 9.
Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage.
10. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case while considering regular bail under section 439 CrPC, if filed, or during the trial.
Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms.All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 05.08. 2022 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.