KARTAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. The prayer of the petitioner for bail was declined by employing clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the view taken that the petitioner had previously been convicted thrice; two times in excise cases and one time for offence under section 457/511, Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid provisions puts a feter on the power of the Court in granting bail if the offender had previously been convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of a non-bailable and a cognizable offence. The aforesaid convictions of the petitioner were for offences cognizable in nature. But as it has come out, convictions under the Excise Act were of offences which were bailable. The petitioner was found to have been convicted for those excise offences and sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 251- and Rs. 30/- respectively. Thus, it appears to me that the provision was misapplied by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind against the petitioner.

(2.) IT is conceded at the bar that the co-accused of the petitioner have been released on bail and it is the petitioner atone who stands incarcerated, though his role in the crime is alleged to be-the same as that of his co-accused. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is allowed bail. Bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind pending trial.