High CourtsSingle Bench

Prithvi Raj vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 19 April 2022 · Citation: (2022) 04 P&H CK 0072

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anoop Chitkara, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 1235 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

65 paragraphs · 661 words

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

890

26.12.2019

Model Town, Rewari, District Rewari

406, 420, 120-B of IPC and 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment (for short HPIDFE) Act, 2013

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.

As per paragraph 16 of the bail application and the paragraph 8 of the response of the State, the petitioner has following criminal history:

Sr. No.

FIR No.

Date/year

Offences

Police Station

1

218 (in custody)

19.06.2019

406, 420, 120-B IPC and 3 of HPIDFE Act, 2013

City Rewari

2

236 (cancelled)

27.06.2019

406, 420, 120-B IPC

Kishangarh, Alwar, Rajasthan

3

322 (in custody)

13.08.2019

406, 506, 420, 120-B IPC and 3 of HPIDFE Act

City Rewari

4

321 (in custody)

2019

420, 406, 120-B IPC and 3 of HPIDFE Act

City Rewari

5

214 (on bail)

2019

406, 420 IPC

Pilani, District Jhunjhunu , Rajasthan

6

234 (in custody)

2019

420, 406, 120-B IPC

Sanoli, Panipat

7

478 (Cancelled)

2019

420, 406 IPC

Neemrana, Rajasthan

8

286 (Cancelled)

2019

420 IPC

Khairthal, Rajasthan

3.

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

4.

Ld. counsel appearing for the State contends that the petitioner has indulged in cheating and thugee is raising its ugly head, and it’s the time to nip the evil in the bud. Furthermore, the petitioner has criminal antecedents, and bail encourages habitual offenders.

5.

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.

6.

The allegations against the petitioner are that petitioner and his brother made the complainant believe that he can make huge money by investing in solar panel business, with 100% subsidy component. Gradually, in the process of time, the accused swindled away a huge amount running to a crore, from the complainant.

7.

The petitioner has a similar criminal past, which casts doubt about his intent and disentitle him for bail. The sly in which the petitioner and his accomplices conned, tricked, deceived, swindled the gullible complainant and her family, point out towards the dangerous trend of the revival of thugee, and if not sternly dealt with now, it might upsurge, revisiting the history.

8.

Given the petitioner’s criminal past coupled with the gravity of offence does not entitle the petitioner bail at this stage.

9.

In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner fails to make a case for bail at this stage. However, it shall be open for the petitioners to file new bail application(s) in changed circumstances or after recording the statements of witnesses other than official and formal witnesses, whichever is earlier. The dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way while considering the fresh petition(s).

10.

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 aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.