Ajay vs State Of Haryana

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

424

14.12.2019

Kharkhoda, District

Sonipat (Haryana)

148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B IPC

and 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

In paragraph 8 of the bail application, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Date

Offences

Police Station

1

201

2019

Kharkhoda

Kharkhoda, Distt.

Sonipat

The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

While opposing the bail, the contentions on behalf of the State are 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 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history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included.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.

The petitioner has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. 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.

On Dec 14, 2019, the petitioner and his accomplices fired multiple shots at Deepak, due to which he died on the way to the hospital. During the investigation, the police found the evidence of the petitioner's involvement and arrested him. During his interrogation, the police recovered the car used in the crime. Eight prosecution witnesses stand examined and as per State, the complainant's evidence is sterling and points towards the petitioner's participation.

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is neither entitled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarceration. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.

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 in terms mentioned above. However, considering the custody, the trial will be expedited, and an endeavor will be made to complete the trial by July 31, 2023. The expediting of the trial is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment, and if he does so, this order shall stand recalled automatically under section 362, read with 482 CrPC, without any further reference to this court. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.