Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajnesh vs State Of Haryana on 29 September, 2022
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-34158-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34158-2022
Reserved on: 09.08.2022
Pronounced on:29.09.2022
Rajnesh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, D.A.G., Haryana.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
160 21.11.2021 Bahin, District Palwal 147, 149, 323, 307, 427 IPC (120-B
IPC added later on) and 25 of Arms
Act
1. The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) seeking bail.
2. In paragraph 11 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offences Police Station
1. 28 28.01.2019 323, 452, 506 IPC Bahin, District Palwal
2. 182 15.04.2020 302 IPC Sadar Nuh
3. 247 04.11.2018 148, 149, 427, 452, 506 IPC Bahin, District Palwal
4. 167 11.08.2018 323, 452, 342, 506, 427 IPC Bahin, District Palwal and Section 25 of Arms Act
5. 243 21.08.2017 148, 149, 323, 506 IPC Bahin, District Palwal
6. 230 21.08.2011 302 IPC Bahin, District Palwal
7. 160 21.11.2021 147, 148, 323, 427, 307 IPC Bahin, District Palwal and Section 25 of Arms Act
3. The petitioner and his accomplices aimed at the complainant's sister-in-law with intention to kill her, and fired 8-9 shots; however, she survived the attack.
11 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2022 03:54:02 ::: CRM-M-34158-2022
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 has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. 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. Apart from this, the allegations point out towards his involvement, and they fired upon an unarmed woman, and is neither entitled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre- trial incarceration.
8. 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.
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
Trial be expedited.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
29.09.2022
Jyoti-II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
2
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 02-10-2022 03:54:03 :::