The accused - applicant is involved in FIR No.601 of 2020, under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He has been falsely implicated. He is languishing in jail since 10.09.2020. It is submitted that three co-accused persons namely Manudeen, Manish Soni & Jay Karan Singh have already been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 08.03.2021, 21.10.2020 & 18.02.2021 passed in Bail No.2540 of 2021, Bail No.7725 of 2020 & Bail No.1375 of 2021 respectively.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and has submitted all the aforesaid co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail did not have any criminal history, however, the present applicant has criminal history of six cases. The applicant is a habitual offender.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record as also aforesaid bail orders of the co-accused persons.
After perusal of the aforesaid bail orders it is evident that there were no criminal history of all the three co-accused persons whom bail has been granted, whereas, the present applicant has criminal history of six cases, which have not been explained. Even pleading in that regard has not been made in the entire bail application.
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. Grant of bail no doubt is an issue which concerns the liberty of a citizen, but at the same time if an accused indulges 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.
Society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is an offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating same crime while on bail and on other hand absolute adherence of fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and sanctity of individual liberty.
The criminal antecedents of accused itself indicates that the applicant is habitual offender. The act of accused applicant is against the society and in case, he is released on bail, it cannot be said that he will not commit another such offences in future.
In view of the above, the instant bail application is rejected/dismissed.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant bail application and shall not affect the trial in any manner.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 nishant/-