JUDGMENT : L.K. Mishra, J. - The Petitioner is an accused in G.R. Case No. 2644 of 2008 pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar involving offence under Sections 341/323/326/307/427/379/506/294/34 of the I.P.C. read with under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Heard learned Counsel for both sides as well as Sri S.K. Sarangi, Advocate, who files a vakalatnama on behalf of the informant on the question of bail. Perused the records. 3. Prosecution allegation is that the Petitioner along with three others came to the house of the informant and abused him in filthy language, when the informant came out of his house the Petitioner gave a sword blow to the head of the informant and the other accused persons injured him by various dangerous weapons and means as such as Bhujali, sword and Gainti etc. When the younger brother of the informant tried to save the informant, he was also seriously injured by them. They also ransacked the house of the informant and took away valuables and went away giving threat to kill the informant and his family members. After investigation charge has been placed in this case. 4. Bail is prayed for on the ground that investigation of the case is over, therefore, further incarceration of the Petitioner is not necessary. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail saying that the Petitioner is a veteran criminal and once he is granted bail there is no chance of any witnesses to come forward to depose in this case. Sri S.K. Sarangi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has also vehemently resisted the prayer for bail of the Petitioner. 5. Detention of an accused prior to his conviction involves curtailment of his liberty granted by the Constitution of India. However, in a non-bailable case as per the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure., 1973 and as established by numerous judicial pronouncements the rule is to refuse bail and the exception to allow it. Therefore, while allowing bail in a non-bailable offence recording of reasons is imperative. However, in a non-bailable case as per the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure., 1973 and as established by numerous judicial pronouncements the rule is to refuse bail and the exception to allow it. Therefore, while allowing bail in a non-bailable offence recording of reasons is imperative. An acc used may have obtained bail in some cases of like nature, but if the totality of the circumstance may show that he is committing crime time and again and cannot be trust e d and has mis-utilised his liberty, then in such an event he may be denied bail. 6. In the lower courts order as many as seven cases have been listed, which are pending against the Petitioner. All of the cases involve offence like rioting, intimidation, attempt to commit murder and used of dangerous weapons. 7. The learned advocate for the Petitioner has produced some documents to show that the Petitioner has been granted bail in the aforementioned cases and has submitted that therefore the cases are of no consequence. I am not convinced of such argument. The record reveals that the Petitioner is a veteran antisocial and has embarked on a career of crime. The documents show that the cases cited start from the year 2005 and continue till date. 8. It is quite clear that since the Petitioner has succeed in getting bail time and again, after committing heinous offence he has been embolden and has been going on committing crimes one after another. 9. I am convinced that if the Petitioner is granted bail then he can easily intimidate the witnesses and therefore, none will come out to depose against him. Granting of bail to a veteran criminal like the present Petitioner would also send a wrong signal to the society at large. Having regard to the nature and gravity of offence, I do not feel inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner. Accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. The BLAPL is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed