Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 23 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 285 of 2024 Announced on: 23rd April, 2024 ____________________________________________________________ .
Suresh Kumar Sharma .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ......Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner:
For the respondent:
r toMr. Lakshay Parihar, Advocate.
Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate General.
Additional Ranjan Sharma, Judge Bail petitioner [Suresh Kumar Sharma], has come up before this Court, seeking pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter (referred to as CrPC). originating from the FIR No. 50 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una [H.P.], under Section 341, 354-A, 354-D, 506-(II) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act.1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS -2-
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Case set up by Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Learned counsel is that the bail petitioner is the owner of a .
shop, which is rented out on tenancy. In order to ensure the proper up-keep of the aforesaid premises, the bail petitioner started work of installing CCTV cameras on the said premises. The aforesaid installation was objected to by the complainant [X], who threatened the bail bail petitioner r to petitioner with dire consequences. As a result of this, the submitted an application to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Una on 09.02.2024. It is further averred that the present FIR dated 12.02.2024 is an outcome of revengeful attitude and just to implicate the petitioner falsely.
2(i). The bail petitioner is stated to have moved a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Una, on 16.02.2024 but, the same was dismissed on 21.02.2024, by not considering the above facts. It is further averred that the petitioner is a responsible person and he has no concern, whatsoever, in the offence, alleged in the FIR. The bail petitioner has also furnished undertakings that he shall ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS -3- join the investigation and shall not tamper with the evidence and will not cause any threat or inducement to the witnesses in any manner.
.
STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 2(ii). Upon issuance of notice by this Court on 22.02.2024, this Court had granted interim protection to the petitioner with the direction to file the Status Report.
The State Authorities filed the Status Report dated 07.03.2024 on the instructions of SHO, Police Station Sadar Una and after furnishing the Status Report the matter was posted for 28.03.2024.
2(iii). On 28.03.2024 the State Authorities have furnished the Fresh Status Report dated 27.03.2024, on the instructions of SHO, Police Station (Sadar) Una, which forms part of the case records. The matter was then listed on 20.04.2024 whereby the Third Status Report dated 08.04.2024 was taken on record. The copy of the Status Report(s), as referred to above was furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner, so as to enable him to make submissions in the matter.
2(iv). A perusal of the Status Reports dated 07.03.2024, ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS -4- 27.03.2024 and 08.04.2024 are pari-materia, containing similar averments.
2(v) In terms of the Status Reports, the prosecution .
story is that the complainant [X] alongwith her sister [y] and daughters reside at the place mentioned in the Status Report. It is averred in the Status Report that the bail petitioner resorted to unwarranted obscene acts from the roof of his shop. It is further averred that while the daughters of the complainant go to market the bail petitioner causes obstruction to them, leading to fear in the minds of her daughters also. Even the bail petitioner had given threatenings of killing to the complainant and her sister.
It is in this background that on the complaint the F.I.R was registered against the bail petitioner under Sections 341, 354A, 354D, 506 (II) IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
During investigation, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 30.02.2024 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even statements of the complainant [X] and her sister [y] were recorded before the Learned jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It has further been revealed in the Status Report that the petitioner had threatened the ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS -5- complainant [X] with pistol. It has also come in the Status Report that the petitioner had filed a bail application before the learned Trial Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions .
Judge-II, Una, which was rejected on 21.02.2024. It has further come in the Status Report that the bail petitioner has a criminal past history and he had been involved in Six F.I.Rs, out of which one case is pending trial.
It has also come in the Status Report that on 6.4.2024, the bail petitioner threatened and caught hold of the sister [y] of the complainant [X] and gave a slap-
beating, due to which she sustained injuries [which is clear from MLC] so as to dissuade her to depose against him and thereafter on the complaint of sister [Y], another F.I.R.
No. 108 of 2024 dated 06.04.2024, under Section 354, 354A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against bail petitioner in Police Station Sadar Una. In the above background, the learned State Counsel has prayed for denying the bail in view of the p rima-facie accusation and also in view of subsequent events dated 06.04.2024 registration of another F.I.R.No. 108 of 2024 dated 06.04.2024, due to which, the bail petitioner is in ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS -6- custody as on day.
3. Heard Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Learned Counsel for the bail petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, Learned .
Additional Advocate General, for the Respondent.
4. Before dealing with the present application, it is necessary to take note of the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 341, 354A, 354D, 506(II), 195A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act under:
r to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:
(1). Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter-alia, the following factors, namely:-
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS -7- reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail;
Provided that, where the High Court or as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this .
Sub-Section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.
(1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under Sub-Section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor r a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court.
(1B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under subsection (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including-
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS -8- Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed .
under Sub-Section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under Sub-Section (1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376 AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 341 of Indian Penal Code:
341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Section 354A of Indian Penal Code:
Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment (1) A man committing any of the following acts-::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS -9-
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or .
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause
(i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause
(iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 354D of Indian Penal Code:
354D. Stalking.--
(1) Any man who--
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that--
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 10 -
entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to .
comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be r punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 506(II) of Indian Penal Code:
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 11 -
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code:
195A. Threatening any person to give false evidence.--
.
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both; and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person r who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.
Section 25 of the Arms Act:
25. Punishment for certain offences.―1 [(1) Whoever--
(a) manufactures, obtains, procures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 12 -
2016 into any other category of firearms in contravention of section 6; or
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in .
contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(1-A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to fourteen years and shall also be liable to fine.
Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.
(1AB) Whoever, by using force, takes the firearm from the police or armed forces shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(1-AA) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx... [(1AAA)] ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(1B) Whoever--
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 13 -
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; or .
(c) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub-
clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies, acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of that section; or
(e) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(f) r ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(g) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(h) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by rules made under section 44, to maintain a record or account or to make therein all such entries as are required by such rules or intentionally makes a false entry therein or prevents or obstructs the inspection of such record or account or the making of copies of entries therefrom or prevents or obstructs the entry into any premises or other place where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals such arms or ammunition or refuses to point out where the same are or is manufactured or kept, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five years ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 14 -
and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less .
than two years.
(1C) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx... (2) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(3) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx... (4) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(5) Whoever, when required under section 19 to give his name and address, refuses to give such name and address or gives a name or address which subsequently transpires to be false shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may r extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.
(6) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(7) ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(8). ...xxx... ...xxx... ...xxx...
(9) Whoever uses firearm in a rash or negligent manner or in celebratory gunfire so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh, or with both.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, "celebratory gunfire" means the practice of using firearm in public gatherings, religious places, marriage parties or other functions to fire ammunition.] [Inserted by Act No. 48 of 2019, dated ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 15 -
13.12.2019.]
5. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused for bail is to be examined/tested within the parameters .
prescribed of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad para-meters mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regulating grant of bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC Chatterjee, (2010) 598 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish 14 SCC 496 ; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, mandating that the bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exists which lead to believe or point out towards accusation ; and these parameters for regular bail have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01.
5(i). While dealing with the matter relating to bail, the three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 16 -
reiterating the broad parameters, has held in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, in Para 25, that the nature of the crime, has a huge relevancy, .
while considering claim for bail.
5(ii). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of the broad parameters and mandated that judicial the claim for bail, as under:
r to application of mind should be reflected while considering
11. Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters including:
(i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence;
(ii) The severity of punishment;
(iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 17 -
influence on the victim and the
witnesses or not;
(iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or
try to approach the victims/witnesses;
(v) Likelihood of accused absconding from .
proceedings;
(vi) Possibility of accused tampering with evidence;
(vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct the due course of justice;
(viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail;
(ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge r including frivolity of the charge;
(x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence.
12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the CrPC, as the case may be.
6. Based on the mandate of law referred to above, the general principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 18 -
of the fact that the power under Section 438 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. It is trite law that while considering the prayer .
for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], the formation of prima facie opinion is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards accusation or whether the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object of either injuring or humiliating or where to to a person has falsely been roped in the crime needs be tested in the background of the self-imposed restrains or the broad parameters mandated by law, as referred to herein above.
7. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No 3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, though a Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of punishment prescribed ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 19 -
for alleged offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the .
accused during trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the large interests of the public/state.
In this background, while testing the claim for bail, the Court is required to form a prima-facie opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred to above, without delving into the evidence on merits, as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution.
8. After taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances of this case; the Status Report(s), the Statutory Provisions and the mandate of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view, that the bail petitioner is not entitled to the continuance or the concession of enlargement on bail, at this stage, for the following reasons:
8(i). The Status Report(s) point out towards the prima facie accusation against the bail petitioner.::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 20 -
Besides this, the material-averments gathered during investigation, as contained in Status Reports reveal that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation-
.
involvement of the bail petitioner.
8(ii). Statements of the complainant and her sister recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and the statement recorded before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C points out prima facie accusation against the and bail petitioner unwarranted r to by indulging activities, in including obscene gestures unwelcomed sexual overtures. The gravity and severity of offences, refrains this Court from enlarging the petitioner on bail when, the prima facie accusation is writ large against the bail petitioner.
8(iii). The Status Report reveals that bail petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, as he has not disclosed the factum of the pistol with which the alleged threatening was given to the complainant, her sister and her daughters on the aforesaid day.
8(iv). Even the past conduct, as detailed in the Status Report, indicates that the bail petitioner is an habitual ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 21 -
offender, against whom, six F.I.Rs were registered, out of which, one case is still sub judice. The things will not stop here. Notably while on interim bail in these .
proceedings, the bail petitioner has involved himself in a fresh case i.e. F.I.R. No. 108 of 2024 dated 6.4.2024 under Sections 354, 354A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station Sadar Una and the bail petitioner is in custody in the aforesaid matter.
8(v).
petitioner
While
for
r enlargement to
considering
on
the
bail,
case
this
of
Court,
the bail
refers
to order dated 22.02.2024 passed by this Court,
whereby interim bail, was granted subject to
the following conditions:-
"6. In the entirety of facts, referred to above, this Court is inclined to grant interim protection, by way of an interim bail, till the next date of hearing, subject to the following conditions:-
(viii) The petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall be abet the commission of any offence. The involvement or abetting in any offence, shall entail cancellation of pre-arrest bail, automatically;
(ix) It is clarified that violation of any of the conditions imposed hereinabove shall entail ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 22 -
cancellation of bail automatically; and"
Notably, though the interim bail was granted on 22.02.2024, with the condition that in case the .
bail petitioner involves himself or abet the commission of any offence then, such involvement or abetting shall entail cancellation of pre-arrest bail and violation of any condition in the bail order was to entail cancellation of bail automatically.
In the above
to background,
petition No. [Cr.MP(M) No. 285 of 2024] originates from r once the instant F.I.R. No. 50 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024 registered under Sections 341, 354A, 354D, 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, but the bail petitioner has involved himself in another offence in F.I.R No. 108 of 2024 dated 06.04.2024 registered under Sections 354, 354A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station (Sadar) Una by violating the Bail Conditions (viii) and (ix) supra therefore, the violation of bail condition is sufficient, for this Court, to decline continuance or enlargement of the petitioner on bail any further.::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 23 -
In these circumstances also the prayer for enlargement on bail is declined.
8(vi). Further the Status report reveals that the bail .
petitioner has been involved in six criminal cases i.e. F.I.R. No. 321 of 2009 dated 03.09.2009 Police Station, (Sadar) Una; F.I.R No. 159 of 2011 dated 22.06.2011, Police Station (Sadar) Una; F.I.R. No. 123 of 2010 dated 10.09.2010 Police Station Anandpur Sahib (Sadar) r Una; to (Punjab); F.I.R No. 299 of 2014 dated 30.07.2014 Police Station F.I.R. No. 174 of 2015 dated 10.06.2015 Police Station (Sadar) Una and F.I.R No. 321 of 2017 dated 02.10.2017 Police Station (Sadar) Una, out of which one case is still sub judice; and one more case has been registered during the pendency of instant petition [i.e. F.I.R. No. 108 of 2024 dated 06.04.2024], therefore, the past criminal history and antecedents also dis-entitle him for continuance or for enlargement of bail at this stage.
In Sunil Kumar versus State of Bihar and another (2022) 3 SCC 245, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has outlined that the past criminal history/ ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 24 -
antecedents disentitle an accused to be enlarged on bail, as under:-
"18. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts .
of the case on hand and more particularly considering the fact that Respondent No. 2 is a history-sheeter and is having a criminal antecedent and is involved in the double murder of having killed the father and brother of the informant and the trial of these cases is at the crucial stage of recording evidence and there are allegations of pressurizing the informant and the witnesses, the impugned judgement and order passed by the High Court releasing Respondent No .2 on bail is absolutely unsustainable and r the same cannot stand. The High Court has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged."
Likewise in the case of Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai versus State of Gujarat and another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1092, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
8. In the present case, after repeated directions, an affidavit has finally been filed by the respondent No.1-State, listing the criminal antecedents of the respondent No.2 in para 5 which is extracted herein below:-
Sr. Details of FIRs
No
1. FIR No. 11216025220323 of 2022 registered at Santej Police Station, Gandhinagar u/s 385, 147, 148, 323, 379, 504, 506(2), 511 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 25 -
r/w 120(B) of Penal Code, 1860.
2. FIR No.11216008210402 of 2021 registered under Section 65(A)(A), 66 (1)(B) of Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 at Sectior-7 Police Station Gandhinagar.
FIR No. 11192011200478 of 2020 registered
3. at Bhopal Police Station, Ahmedabad .
Rural u/s 188 of Penal Code, 1860 and 113 of Gujarat Police Act.
12. For the reasons noted above, we are of the firm opinion that the respondent No .2 was not entitled to any relief in the instant case. Respondent No.2 had remained in custody for barely six months (23rd September, 2021 to 18th February, 2022) before he was released on bail in respect of a serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC. His antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime. r Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18th February, 2022 is quashed and set-aside and respondent No.2 is directed to surrender forthwith before the trial Court."
In view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, once the past civil antecedents and past criminal history of the bail petitioner is blemished, then, the bail petitioner cannot be enlarged in these circumstances.
8(vii). Even during interim bail, the bail petitioner has thwarted the administration of justice firstly, by involving himself in another F.I.R No. 108 of 2024 on 06.04.2024 and secondly by giving threatenings ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 26 -
and beating to sister of the complainant, who is a likely to be a witness in the proceedings originating from F.I.R No. 50 of 2024, in the instant case. This act and conduct .
of the petitioner, in giving threatenings and beatings to a witness disentitles the petitioner for further continuance or for enlargement on bail, at this stage.
8(viii). The release or enlargement on bail is likely to result in the petitioner, threatening or causing injury to the complainant and her daughters, who are likely to be the witnesses to the prima facie accusation against the bail petitioner.
8(ix). Even the Status Report reveals that the alleged pistol is yet to be recovered from the bail petitioner and since the bail petitioner is not cooperating with investigation qua recovery of said pistol; therefore, he is not entitled for continuance or further enlargement of bail at this stage.
8(x). Enlargement on bail is likelihood to give rise to similar offence(s), being repeated, by the bail petitioner, as has been done by him during interim bail granted to him in this case, and in these circumstances, the ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 27 -
enlargement on bail, shall not be in larger societal interests also.
9. In view of the above discussion, and in the .
peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the prayer of the bail petitioner, for enlargement on bail, at this stage is without merits; and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
10. As a sequel to the rejection of bail, this Court, directs the petitioner toto surrender and his personal bond and surety bond executed in r before the police pursuance to the order dated 22.02.2024 [interim bail], shall stand cancelled. In case, the petitioner fails to surrender, the State Authorities shall proceed in accordance with law.
11. The observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for the purposes of investigation and the proceedings thereafter, including the trial, if any against either of the parties herein.
In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS
- 28 -
also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge April 23, 2024 .
(tm)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2024 20:30:01 :::CIS