High Court Grants Regular Bail: “Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sole Basis for Denial of Bail.”

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary, granted regular bail to petitioner Vinod Kumar @ Rangila in connection with FIR No.103 dated 07.05.2019. The FIR registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, Punjab, involved serious offenses under Sections 307, 353, 186, 224, 225, 34, 379-B, and 120-B IPC (with Section 411 IPC added subsequently) and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner had been in custody for a prolonged period of almost 4 years and 1 month. The case took a noteworthy turn as the petitioner’s name emerged based on a disclosure statement by a co-accused. The prosecution had alleged that the accused, along with others, had helped a fellow detainee escape from police custody while being transferred to a hospital. However, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, argued that the specific allegations of firing shots were directed towards the co-accused Swaran Singh, who was already in custody.

Justice Aman Chaudhary took into account various factors, including the time spent in custody, the fact that co-accused had been granted bail earlier, and the pending trial with a substantial number of witnesses (35 in total). Notably, the Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382, which emphasizes that “the claim of the accused cannot be rejected merely on the basis of criminal antecedents,” and bail cannot be refused solely based on the seriousness of the alleged offense.

Upholding the principles laid down by the Apex Court, Justice Chaudhary observed, “The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail.” The Court, therefore, granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to several conditions ensuring his cooperation with the trial proceedings and non-involvement in any similar offenses.

It is important to note that the Court clarified that the observations made in this judgment are confined to the present proceedings and do not prejudge the merits of the case, leaving the trial to proceed independently.

Date of Decision: 24th July 2023

Vinod Kumar @ Rangila vs State of Punjab