Vikas Kalyan @ Nanu vs State Of Punjab

Anoop Chitkara, J

FIR No

Dated

Police Station

Sections

21

6.2.2019

Navi Baradari, Jalandhar

302, 307, 324, 148, 149, 109, 120-B IPC and later on added Section 326 IPC and 25, 27 Arms Act

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

As per custody certificate, the petitioner has following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No

FIR No.

Date

Offences

Police Station

1

170

13.9.2014

307/323/148/149 IPC

Kotwali Kapurthala

2

217

23.6.2007

353/186/382/427/511 IPC

Div.No.4, Jalandhar

3

134

15.7.2015

307/148/149 IPC

Navi Baradari

4

7

20.1.2018

353/186/323/148/149 IPC

Navi Baradari

5

93

16.5.2017

323/341/148/149 IPC

Div.No.1 Jalandhar

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. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner visible in the CCTV footage.

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history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included.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 6th February, 2019, Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi, Jagraj Singh alais Jagga, Sukhwinder Pal Singh and their accomplices fired upon Davinder Singh and also on his brother, the complainant Kamalpreet Singh. During the investigation, based on the statement of the witness Pankaj Joshi, the police arrested the petitioner and got recovered Datar used in the crime.

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, prima facie 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. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. However, the trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.