Hardeep Singh vs State Of Haryana

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

28

17.01.2015

Mahesh Nagar, Distt. Ambala

302, 303, 34, 120-B and section 25-54-59 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 13 of the bail application, the accused declares no criminal history,; however, as per the custody certificate, the petitioner has following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No

FIR No

Date

Offences

Police Station

1

575/2022

NA

42(A) of Prisons Act

Baldev Nagar Ambala

2

470/2022

08.09.2022

42(A) of Prisons Act

Baldev Nagar Ambala

3

78/2016

09.03.2016

42(A) of Prisons Act, 188 IPC

Baldev Nagar Ambala

4

249+/2015

NA

42(A) of Prisons Act

Baldev Nagar Ambala

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history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included.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. 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.

An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. Vide judgment dated 01-03-2019, passed in CRM-M-3475-2019, a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed that 29 witnesses stand examined; the prosecution shall endeavor to examine the remaining witnesses at the earliest, preferably within five months. On 02-03-2021, the court again observed that out of 80 witnesses, 50 stand examined and on such statement, the bail petition was withdrawn. It is strange to notice that the trial is still pending despite such directions.

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.

Regarding delay in the trial, given the protracted trial, the prosecution is directed not to seek any adjournments and similarly the trial court should be strict while adjourning the matter on the request of accused.

The petition is dismissed. However, considering the petitioners’ custody, this court requests the concerned trial court to take up this matter on top priority, and make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Sep 30, 2023, of which the prosecution evidence be completed by Aug 31, 2023, and the remaining time to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired. It is clarified that this order speeding-up the trial is subject to the condition that neither the petitioner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tactics to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expediting the trial shall stand automatically recalled by resorting to Section 362, read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. All pending applications, if any, stand closed.