Naresh Saroha Alias Nesha vs State Of Haryana

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

257

18.03.2021

Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonipat

148, 302, 452, 149, 120-B IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act

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

In paragraph 23 of the bail petition, the accused declares the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Date

Offences

Police Station

1

191

18.03.2021

City, District Sonipat

City, District Sonipat

Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds of parity with Parvinder Malik, who was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2022 passed in CRM-M-2305-2022. He further 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. He further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to bail on the grounds of parity.

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history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included.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

The petitioner claims bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Mrs. Parvinder Malik. This Court had granted bail to Parvinder Malik, being a woman and also on the ground that her role was only of criminal conspiracy and the Court had also considered the evidence against her.

Given above, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on parity. Furthermore, a perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement being named in the FIR 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. Simply because the petitioner is even in custoy from 13.04.2021 be also not entitled to him on bail and alos that he is a habitual offender. 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. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.