Sagar vs State Of Rajasthan

The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.191/2020

registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Section(s) 379 & 356 of I.P.C.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery of mobile phone is defective inasmuch as IMEI number of the mobile phone seized

from possession of the petitioner has not been shown. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for last about four months, charge-sheet has been

filed and prays for his release on bail.

Opposing the bail application, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and seven other criminal cases are pending

against him, out of which six are of similar nature. He submitted that misusing his liberty of bail granted on earlier occasion, the petitioner is involving

in offences of similar nature again and again and hence, he does not deserve indulgence of bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the criminal record of the petitioner, it is apparent that he is a habitual offender. A co-ordinate 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.