JUDGMENT : 1. - Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available during course of arguments. 2. These are three bail applications under Section 439 Cr.RC. at the instance of accused-petitioner Kalu Ram Vishnoi. While in first two cases, allegation against him is of committing offence under Sections 304, 328 IPC and 54-B of the Rajasthan Excise Act, in third case allegation against him is of committing offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 3. Shri N.K. Bohra, learned counsel argued that in third case, it is alleged that certain packaging material of genuine brands of liquor, to show illicit liquor as genuine, were recovered at the instance of petitioner. It was argued that alleged offences are under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, which are all triable by the Court of 1st Class Magistrate. Shri N.K. Bohra, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the statement of Station House Officer, Basni recorded in some other FIR No.33/2011 of the same police station, has been used in the first two cases for registering FIR against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 304 and 328 IPC read with Section 54 of the Excise Act and Sections 201 and 120B IPC respectively. The aforesaid statement contains admission of co-accused Raju Ram in the shape of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act according to which, his role and that of co-accused Haulal is similar to that of accused-petitioner, who have already been enlarged on bail by this court. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case investigation started on the basis of statement of one Rajesh, who stated that he and his partners Manoj and Prafulla purchased contraband liquor from one Kishan Maharaj, Sharifa and one fat lady, who was identified as Basanti. Consumption of the liquor led to unfortunate deaths of certain persons. All three of them have been extended benefit of bail. Petitioner ought to be, therefore, extended benefit ef bail on the ground of parity. 4. It is also argued that in the present matter, on the basis of same statement of S.H.O., six different cases were registered for various offences to make the offence much graver. Co-accused Haulal and Pappu also had almost similar number of previously registered cases against them. 4. It is also argued that in the present matter, on the basis of same statement of S.H.O., six different cases were registered for various offences to make the offence much graver. Co-accused Haulal and Pappu also had almost similar number of previously registered cases against them. Even if all 22 deaths have taken place on account of consumption of illicit liquor, only one case should have been registered. As regards the previous 12 criminal cases registered against the accused-petitioner, learned counsel submitted that antecedents alone cannot be a reason to decline the benefit of bail especially when co-accused Haulal, whose role is much graver, has been granted bail. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu - Learned counsel also cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. And another - to argue that role of the accused has to be seen in the light of the evidence in the present case and bail cannot be denied only on account of antecedents of the accused. 5. Shri N.K. Bohra, learned counsel submits that even if six cases vide different first information reports have been registered against accused-petitioner, in three of them he has already been enlarged on bail and merit of each case should be examined independently uninfluenced by evidence collected by investigating officer in other cases. In this connection, he referred to statements of Altaf Shah, Sohan Lal and Mohammad Arif and argued that as per case of the prosecution, Amandeep in fact supplied illicit spirit to co-accused Om Prakash and not directly to accused-petitioner and that was meant for co-accused Shyamlal. The police is not proceeding against those two co-accused. Learned counsel also cited statements of Kishan Lal and Hernial. 6. It was argued that as far as third case is concerned, trial of this case, according to Section 437(6) of the Cr.RC., should have been concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence. But so far only charges have been framed and conclusion of trial is nowhere in near sight. Learned counsel argued that Section 437(6) Cr.RC. But so far only charges have been framed and conclusion of trial is nowhere in near sight. Learned counsel argued that Section 437(6) Cr.RC. is mandatory provision therefore bail cannot be denied to the accused on the ground of his antecedents alone, as right to speedy trial even in criminal case is guaranteed to every citizen by Article 21 of the Constitution. 7. Per contra, Shri Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the bail applications argued that petitioner along-with co-accused Amandeep and Raju Ram, are the principal accused. It was Amandeep, who used to supply spirit from Madhya Pradesh to present accused-petitioner Kalu Ram. He further submitted that the evidence collected in these cases proves role of petitioner as that of the kingpin of the whole gang, who used to manufacture illicit liquor and supply the same. Payment used to be made through ‘hawala’ by Om Prakash. There is no evidence of recovery of any illicit liquor or any machinery etc. for manufacturing liquor from co-accused Om Prakash. Co-accused Shyamlal and Amandeep are absconding and the police is making all out efforts to arrest them. A coordinate bench of this court has been persuaded to reject the bail application of co-accused Raju Ram, who used to procure supply of illicit liquor from the accused-petitioner. In this connection, certain recoveries that were made from house of Raju Ram proved that it was Kalu Lal, who used to supply illicit liquor and account thereof was being maintained by Raju Ram. Even if different six cases have been registered, fact is that entire liquor that has been proved to be contaminated originated from accused-petitioner Kalu Ram Vishnoi, whose offence is much graver than that of co-accused Raju Ram and Haulal. Gravity of the offence even otherwise is writ large from the fact that 22 innocent persons lost their lives due to consumption of contaminated liquor, which had emanated from present accused-petitioner. Learned counsel argued that apart from present six cases, in the present series of cases, there are twelve more criminal cases registered against accused in the past, many of which were registered under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, starting from the year 2002, which indicates that he has been involved in the clandestine business of illicit liquor for more than a decade. 8. Shri Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor argued that Section 437(6) Cr.RC. 8. Shri Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor argued that Section 437(6) Cr.RC. does not guarantee absolute right of bail to accused but is conditional one. The court can decline bail for specific reasons to be recorded in writing. The court below has rejected the bail application of the petitioner citing specific reasons and which are even otherwise clear from the facts of the case that due to consumption of illicit liquor, as many as 22 innocent persons lost their lives, six FIRs were registered against petitioner and twelve cases were also registered against him in the past. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions, perused the material on record and respectfully studied the cited case law. 10. I am not inclined to uphold the contention that there is lesser degree of gravity of offence, in so far as the allegation against petitioner is concerned, as compared to those, who have been granted bail in four cases. At the same time, bail application of co-accused Raju Ram was also dismissed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court by a common order where the evidence that Kalu Ram and Haulal were found procuring the illicit liquor, was considered. Independently also, therefore, gravity of the offence against the accused petitioner cannot be lost site of so as to hold him entitled to release on bail. Tough, at the same time, there is additional factor of antecedents against petitioner of registration of as many as 12 criminal cases, in the past out of which, first one was for offence u/S. 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act pertaining to possession and supply of illicit liquor, which was registered in the year 2002. This sufficiently proves repeated indulgence of the petitioner in the commission of such offences. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions, perused the material on record and respectfully studied the cited case law. 12. It is no doubt true that personal liberty of a citizen, even if he is found indulging in a serious offence, has to be zealously safeguarded and Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to speedy trial to an accused. At the same time, however, law is well settled that individual interest of citizen has to be balanced as against the collective interest of the society. At the same time, however, law is well settled that individual interest of citizen has to be balanced as against the collective interest of the society. This assumes importance if it is shown that a person despite being repeatedly released on bail, has been habitually and frequently indulging in commission of offences. 13. I had occasion to deal with similar argument in Vijay Kumar Meena v. State 2008(3) WLC (Raj.) 261 . In para 3 of the order, it was observed, as under: "3. Although pendency of a criminal case as such may not always be a bar for grant of bail, but if it is shown that in spite of indulgence repeatedly shown by the Court, an accused has been continuously misusing such liberty and involving himself time and again in similar and other nature of offences, this may by itself be a reason for refusal of bail. And that can be done if the Court on the basis of material on record is satisfied that the accused has been repeatedly involving himself in so large number of cases and at such regular intervals, that he can be safely treated as a habitual offender. Grant of bail no doubt is an issue which concerns the liberty of a citizen. But at the same time, if an accused is shown to frequently and habitually indulge himself in commission of crimes one after the other and becomes a menace to the society, that liberty is required to be balanced against the larger interest of the society. Apart from merits of the case, when it is shown that he has been committing offences with impunity in such a manner that letting him free would again expose the society to the offences that such habitual offender might again commit, the bail application of such an accused can be refused on consideration of his antecedents alone." 14. In the cited case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashdi (supra), the Supreme Court held that while considering the antecedents, role of the accused in the case at hand has also to be examined on the basis of the evidence. In another cited case of Rekha (supra), it was held that if the co-accused has been granted bail, whose case is on the same footing, similar treatment should ordinarily be given to accused seeking bail. In another cited case of Rekha (supra), it was held that if the co-accused has been granted bail, whose case is on the same footing, similar treatment should ordinarily be given to accused seeking bail. Both these judgments, in view of the discussion made above, do not extend any help to the accused petitioner. The past record and antecedents of an accused have always been held to be relevant consideration for either granting or refusing benefit of bail to an accused. 15. The Supreme Court in Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. 2005(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 274 : 2005(2) SCC 13 , after considering previous case law on the subject held that "nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case", are the considerations which normally weight with the court in granting bail in non-bailable offences. 16. In Sompal Singh v. Sunil Rathi and another : 2005(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 132 : AIR 2005 SC 1483 also, the Supreme Court set aside order of the High Court granting bail to the accused, on the premise that the fact that the accused had several other criminal cases to his credit did not receive consideration at the hands of the High Court. 17. In Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat and others 2008(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 747 : 2008(3) SCC 775 also, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused by the High Court on consideration of various factors including of the antecedents of the accused respondent in that, he was named as an accused in ten criminal cases in past twenty five years, five of which were for offence under Section 307 IPC and one for offence under Section 302 IPC. 18. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subharao : AIR 1989 SC 2292 considering the argument of right to speedy trial vis-a-vis Article 21 of the Constitution in para 7 of the report, held as under: "Liberty occupies a place of pride in our socio-political order. 18. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subharao : AIR 1989 SC 2292 considering the argument of right to speedy trial vis-a-vis Article 21 of the Constitution in para 7 of the report, held as under: "Liberty occupies a place of pride in our socio-political order. And who knew the value of liberty more than the rounding fathers of our Constitution whose liberty was curtailed time and again under Draconian laws by the colonial rulers. That is why they provided in Article 21 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. It follows, therefore, that the personal liberty of an individual can be curbed by procedure established by law. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is one such procedural law. That law permits curtailment of liberty of anti-social and anti-national elements. Article 22 casts certain obligations on the authorities in the event of arrest of an individual accused of the commission of a crime against society or the Nation. In cases of under trials charged with the commission of an offence or offences the court is generally called upon to decide whether to release him on bail or to commit him to jail. This decision has 'to be made, mainly in non-bailable cases, having regard to the nature of the crime the circumstances in which it was committed, the background of the accused, the possibility of his jumping bail, the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on society and the possibility of retribution, etc. xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx" A co-ordinate bench of this court in Devi Singh v. The State of Rajasthan : 2012(2) WLC (Raj.) 298 after analysing some of judgments of Supreme Court, referred to above, held as under:- "13. After considering the facts of the present case as well as number of criminal cases against the accused petitioner and the nature of accusation against him, the case of Shri Thukchuk Lachungpa v. State of Sikkim (supra) [RLW 2001(3) SC 375] would be of no assistance to him. After considering the facts of the present case as well as number of criminal cases against the accused petitioner and the nature of accusation against him, the case of Shri Thukchuk Lachungpa v. State of Sikkim (supra) [RLW 2001(3) SC 375] would be of no assistance to him. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the subsequent cases referred to above, has very categorically laid down that background, antecedents and pending cases against accused are relevant considerations and even if he has been discharged/acquitted in some cases, it is not of much consequence while considering bail in criminal cases subsequently registered against him. In the contemporaneous times, the interest of public at large, law and order of the society and to restrain repetition of offences by accused persons are certainly considerations which cannot be overlooked by the Court while deciding a bail application. The balance between the individual interest and social interest has to be maintained which is the need of the hour and to ignore the criminal record of an accused would certainly amount to failing in duty and responsibility which a court of law is to perform." 19. The Supreme Court in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan - 2009(2) SCC 281 , has held that question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. It was held that the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of n man, who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on one hand, the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence, viz., the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty, however, exists in proportion to wholesome restrain, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. Liberty, however, exists in proportion to wholesome restrain, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. 20. The Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra - 2011(1) SCC 694 , in sub-para (ii) of Para 112 of the report held that antecedents of the accused applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognisable offence, would be relevant factor while considering his anticipatory bail application. In sub-para (iv) of Para 112 of the same report, it was held by the Supreme Court that while considering anticipatory bail application, possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or other offence should also be examined. These observations, though made in the context of anticipatory bail applications, are nevertheless relevant for grant of bail pending trial under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Evidentially, accused, who in the past has indulged in committing number of offences each time after having been extended liberty of bail, was most likely to repeat the similar offence.Adverting now to the argument on interpretation of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C., it may be observed that provision contained in Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. does not appear to be mandatory in nature and it is only directory because the very language of Section 437(6) Cr.RC. provides that if in a case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise holds. Though in the present case, gravity and seriousness of the offence also justifies rejection of bail but also it cannot be said that despite repeated indulgence of accused in similar offences, one after the other and his involvement in large number of cases on regular intervals habitually, the offender should necessarily be granted bail just because he has applied for grant of bail. In the facts of a given case, if the Magistrate finds the antecedents of the accused to be so grave as prima-facie showing his repeated involvement in the offences despite being granted indulgence of bail by court, it may constitute a reason for him to decline him bail despite non-completion of prosecution evidence within sixty days from the date first fixed for the purpose. 21. This court while deciding S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1749/2011 - Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, vide order dated 29.03.2011 , has held that it cannot be said that despite repeated indulgence of accused in similar offences one after the other and his involvement in large number of cases on regular intervals habitually, the offender should necessarily be granted bail on alleged infringement of Section 437(6), supra, just because he has applied for grant of bail. 22. A coordinate bench of this Court in Lakkie Lakhbeer Singh v. State - 2005(4) RLW 2875 , also rejected a similar argument holding that it is not necessary that in each and every case, an accused in a case triable by Magistrate has to be released on bail if as per Section 437(6), supra, trial is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case. A Magistrate however is required to record the reasons in writing for refusal of the bail. 23. Upshot of the above discussion is that the accused-petitioner has not been able to make out a case for his release on bail pending trial in any of these cases. All these three bail applications are, therefore, dismissed however with the direction that nothing observed here-in-above shall be taken to adversely affect merits of the case and rights of the accused In any manner in the pending trial. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest and in doing so, decline unnecessary adjournments unless, it becomes absolutely necessary for stated reasons.All Bail Applications Dismissed. *******