Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 157 (RAJ)

Anil Kumar Raiger v. State of Rajasthan

2021-01-20

MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : Mahendra Kumar Goyal, J. 1. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 862/2018 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle Jaipur, District Jaipur City (East) for the offence under Section 379 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after recovery of 4 motor cycles at his behest under Section 102 Cr.P.C. on 02.10.2020, falsely implicating in the present case, he has been arrested on 07.02.2020. With regard to criminal antecedents, he submitted that the petitioner is on bail in other cases. He submitted that the petitioner is an accused under Section 411 IPC, offence is triable by Magistrate and prayed for release of the petitioner on bail. 3. Opposing the second bail application, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has following criminal cases registered against him:- S. No. Case No. & date Section(s) Chalan/F.I.R. Police Station 1. 25/16 date 05.02.2016 379 IPC Pending in Court Motidugri Jaipur East 2. 299/19 379 & 411 IPC Pending in Court Bajaj Nagar Jaipur East 3. 393/16 379 IPC Pending in Court Malivay Nagar Jaipur East 4. 862/18 379 & 411 IPC Chalan No. 193/20 date-14.10.2020 Jawahar Circle Jaipur East 5. 303/15 379 IPC Pending Muhane Jaipur South 4. He submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. The perusal of the criminal record of the petitioner reveals that he is a habitual offender and misusing his liberty of bail granted on earlier occasion, he is indulging in offence(s) of similar nature again and again. A coordinate bench of this Court in case of Vijay Kumar Meena vs. State- 2008 (4) RLW 3041, held as under: "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 arid 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." Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. reads as under: "When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary- (a) in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or (b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or (c) otherwise in the interests of justice." Thus, it is apparent that violating the terms and conditions of bail granted on earlier occasion, the petitioner is indulging in offences again and again and hence, he does not deserve indulgence of bail. The second bail application is dismissed accordingly.