Satwinder Singh @ Maula v. State Of Haryana
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 Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Gautam, D.A.G., Haryana.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 09.09.2021 Garhi, District Jind 148, 149, 323, 341, 379, 427, 397, 506 IPC (Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 379 IPC have been deleted in challan) 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 13 of the bail application, the accused declares 12 cases against him, whereas as per State instructions, there are 06 more cases against the petitioner. Overall, the 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.
22.01.2022 153, 186, 307, 323, 332, 341, 379B, 506, 148 & 149 IPC Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur 12.
27.11.2021 307, 459, 458, 326, 325, 324, 323, 201, 148, 149 IPC Khannauri, District Sangrur 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.
24.06.2016 22/61/85 NDPS Act City Dhuri 17.
21.05.2020 61/1/14 Ex. Act Sadar Dhuri 18.
22.06.2020 61/1/14 Ex. Act Sadar Dhuri 3.
The complainant had alleged that on Sep 9, 2021, the 6/7 unknown persons had waylaid him, assaulted him by proclaiming that he did not let those people transport the illicit liquor, and liquor without permit. The complainant was inflicted blows on his waist and shoulders with iron pipe and also damaged his car. 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 had 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 allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious. He took advantage of his previous bails and continued to appear in criminal activities. In the present case there is sufficient prima facie evidence pointing towards his involvement and his custodial interrogation is required.
8.
An analysis of the allegations coupled with the previous criminal antecedents; the petitioner's custodial interrogation is required and he does 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.