Jeeto And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 16.08.2022
Pronounced on: 14.09.2022 Jeeto and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, DAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Sections 08.08.2021 Bhargo Camp, 379-B, 34, 201 IPC District Jalandhar The petitioners, incarcerating upon their arrest in the FIR captioned above, have come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail.
As per status report the petitioners have the following criminal history: PETITIONER No. 1 JEETO:
21.04.2018 P.A.U. Ludhiana 09.09.2012 Payal, Ludhiana 10.06.2021 174-A IPC Sadar Khanna 16.03.20210 382, 384, 411, 34 Sadar Khanna
26.05.2011 379, 328, 411, 420 City 1 Khanna 27.02.2020 10.10.2021 379, 34 IPC 29.07.2021 28.
16.01.2012 City Nawashahar 29.
27.07.2012 382 IPC City Balachaur 30.
379, 411, 201 IPC 31.
382 IPC Machhiwara Sahib 32.
11.03.2021 33.
16.09.2012 382 IPC Payal, Ludhiana 34.
35.
03.10.2014 399, 402 IPC Kot Wali, Nabha 36.
392, 365, 201 IPC Navi Baradari, Jalandhar 37.
14.07.2010 379, 411, 34 IPC City Khanna 38.
16.09.2012 382 IPC Doraha 39.
16.09.2012 382 IPC Malaud 40.
01.08.2012 382 IPC Malaud 41.
16.09.2012 382 IPC Doraha 28.04.2021 174-A IPC Doraha, Ludhiana PETITIONER No.2 GOGA:
27.02.2020
10.10.2021 379, 34 IPC 29.07.2021 379, 411, 201 IPC 392, 365, 201 IPC Navi Baradari, Jalandhar 379-B, 34, 201 IPC 11.02.2021 PETITIONER No. 3 RAJJI:
27.02.2020 10.10.2021 379, 34 IPC 29.07.2021 379, 411, 201 IPC 392, 365, 201 IPC Navi Baradari, Jalandhar 11.03.2021 PETITIONER NO. 4 SUKHCAHIN SINGH:
10.10.2021 379, 34 IPC
27.07.2020 29.02.2021 28.
29.
The petitioners allegedly visited the complainant's house in a car and asked her whether she was able to recognize, and when the complainant feigned ignorance, then they asked her to get them water and told her to bring water in their tumbler. After that, one of the car's occupants came out under the pretext of handing over the tumbler, and over powered the complainant, removed her gold bangles, and fled away in their car.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and family. 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:
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 petitioners 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.
The allegations reveal that the petitioners are gang members operating in cahoots. A perusal of the petition does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.Given a large number of criminal antecedents, it is most likely that after release on bail, they would again start their nefarious operations. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners fail to make a case for bail at this stage. However, the petitioners may file fresh bail petitions on the grounds of prolonged custody. The dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way while considering the fresh petition(s).
9. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Since three out of four petitioners are women, this court requests the trial court to expedite the trial on top priority. Registry to inform the concerned court. Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 14.09.2022 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.