Prosecution Resulting In Acquittal, Discharge, Withdrawal Cannot Be Included In Criminal History For Considering Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR, the prosecution stands withdrawn, or a closure report is filed, cannot be included in criminal history for considering bail application of an accused.

Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused."

The Court further added that in reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included.

Justice Chitakara opined that although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, "yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles."

These observations were made in response to the bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC in a case pertaining to causing grievous hurt and rioting under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342, 364, 427, 186, 353 of IPC.

The accused had declared that he was previously booked under Sections 174A for non-appearance in response to a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC.

It was alleged that the accused had beaten a man carrying buffalo meat in his vehicle and damaged his pick up van. 

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 

After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that while considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law.

Reliance was placed upon Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. [(2012) 3 SCC 382], to underscore that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the bail cannot be rejected and it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

The Court noted that the petitioner had surrendered before the Court in October 2023 and in custody since then.

"Given the allegations involved viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, he voluntarily surrendered before the trial Court, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage," the Judge said.

Thus, the Court did not consider the previous criminal history of the petitioner "strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail."

In the light of the above, while imposing certain conditions on the petitioner, the Court granted the relief.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 107

Title: Dharamraj v. State of Haryana

R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Sourabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Click here to read/download the order