Mere Involvement In Other Cases Can't Be Sole Basis To Confine Accused In Perpetuity, Case To Be Considered On Its Own Merits: Punjab & Haryana HC

Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 27, 2022, while dealing with a petition for seeking concession of regular bail in FIR registered under provisions of IPC and the Arms Act, held that taking into consideration, the role of the petitioner, the alleged recovery and the stage of investigation along with the period of actual custodial detention already undergone, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj held that the mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole basis to keep him confined in perpetuity. Even though the antecedents of an accused may be one amongst the relevant considerations while adjudicating a petition on merits for grant of bail, however, a mere involvement of the petitioner in other cases cannot be the sole basis to keep him confined in perpetuity. The court further added that the power to adjudicate upon the liberties of an individual cannot be deployed as a means of inflicting a sentence on an accused. The role attributed to the person along with the evidence remains a prime consideration. The power to adjudicate upon the liberties of an individual, while considering their claim of bail, cannot be deployed as a means of inflicting sentence on an accused. The role attributed to the person and the evidence collected during the investigation by the Investigating Agency would invariably remain a prime consideration with the Court while considering the application of bail along with stage of the prosecution case and the period of custody.The petitioner was charged under Sections 342, 395, 397, 307, 34 and 120-B of IPC and Section 25, 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959. He had moved the instant application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for seeking concession of regular bail.It was contended that petitioner is not named in the FIR and there is no attribution to the petitioner of having play any active or passive role in commission of the offence. It was pointed out that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure made by the co-accused. It was further argued that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly 7 months and that the trial is yet to commence. Counsel for the State opposed the application and it is contended that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and that he is involved in two other cases. Taking into consideration, the role of the petitioner in the present case and the fact that his involvement is only on the basis of a disclosure made by the co-accused, the court granted the bail. Case Title : Vipul v. State of Punjab Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 90 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Involvement In Other Cases Can't Be Sole Basis To Confine Accused In Perpetuity, Case To Be Considered On Its Own Merits: Punjab & Haryana HC

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags