No anticipatory bail for accused with criminal past: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, January 11

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an accused with criminal antecedents and tendency to commit repeated crimes does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The ruling by Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill of the High Court came in a drugs case after the Bench was told that the accused was allegedly involved in three other cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner has a tendency of committing repeated crimes. He does not deserve concession of the anticipatory bail. In view of this, the petition is dismissed. Justice Gill

Advertisement

The matter was brought to the notice of the High Court after the drugs case accused filed a petition against the state of Punjab and other respondents. He was seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered on November 2, 2021, under the NDPS Act.

Appearing before Justice Gill’s Bench, the counsel for the petitioner submitted before the court that the accused had been falsely indicted in the present case. Giving details, the counsel added that the petitioner was proceeded against on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused. The Bench was also told that a bag containing 1 kg of heroin was allegedly recovered from the co-accused. Opposing the prayer for bail, the state counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was a habitual offender, involved in three other cases under the NDPS Act.

After hearing the parties and going through the record of the case, Justice Gill took note of the state counsel’s submission that the petitioner was involved in three other drugs cases. In his detailed order, Justice Gill added that the trial court, while dismissing his bail application, noticed that the petitioner had misused the concession of the bail granted to him. This was when he was on bail in the earlier cases. “Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender, he does not deserve concession of the anticipatory bail,” Justice Gill concluded.