RAFIQ, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case inasmuch as the petitioner was not driving the vehicle at the time of incident and no specific injury has been inflicted by the petitioner. LEARNED Court below erred in law in rejecting the bail application solely on the ground of previous cases registered against the petitioner.
(2.) THIS bail application u/s. 439 Cr. P. C. has been filed at the instance of an accused who is yet again asking for the grant of bail pending trial even though as per the order passed by the Court of Sessions, Alwar, he was in the past extended such liberty in as many as 17 cases. He has thus been repeatedly misusing the liberty granted by different courts. The first case registered against the petitioner with Police Station Hindaun was under Section 379 and 411 IPC. Thereafter, another case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2005 again under Section 379 and then in the year 2006 again FIR for offence under Section 379 and 411 was lodged against the petitioner with Police Station Kulav vs. the year 2007, six different cases were registered against the petitioner in different Police Stations in Jaipur District for offences under Section 379 such as Police Stations Jyoti Nagar, Sanganer, Chaksu, Malviya Nagar, Shivpuri. Similarly, outside Jaipur also, criminal cases were registered against the petitioner under Section 379 in the year 2007 with the Police Stations Malarna Doongar, Sawaimadhopur, Sapotara and Karauli respectively. In fact, one of the case in which the petitioner was named as accused registered with Police Station Karauli, not only was for offence under Section 379, but also under Section 307, 332, 353 and 411 IPC and in one more case registered against him in Police Station Sapotara, he was alleged to have committed offence under Section 307 IPC. In yet another case registered with Police Station Gangapur City, the allegation against him was of committing offence u/s. 394 and 398 IPC. The FIR registered against him in Police Station, Dausa in the year 2007 indicates that he was accused of committing offence u/s. 363, 366a, 376 and 120b-B of IPC. 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 and 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. I therefore do not find any good reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Court of Sessions, Alwar that the petitioner who is a habitual offender and has been mostly indulging in theft of vehicles, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. The bail application is therefore dismissed. .;