S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.2300/08 Ashik Vs. State Date of order : 27/3/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J Shri N.U.Qazi for the petitioner. Shri R.P. Kuldeep, P.P. for the State. ****** Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case inasmuch as the petitioner was not possessing 15 grams smack as alleged. Learned court below erred in law in rejecting the bail application solely on the ground of previous cases registered against the petitioner. This bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed at the instance of an accused who has 10 previous cases registered against him in different Police Station. Out of the 10 previous cases, two cases were registered under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act in which in Case No.22/02, he was convicted from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota on 4.7.2006. Four cases were registered under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, out of which in Case No.203/99, he was convicted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.3, South, Kota on 4.12.2000. Another case was registered bearing no.96/03 at Police Station, GRP, Sawai Madhopur under Section 379 IPC in which also he was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Kota with a sentence of three months and a fine of Rs.100/-. In addition to these cases, two more cases under Section 392 and 394 respectively were registered against him with Police Station Kotwali, Kota and one case was registered against him with Police Station Kishorepura, Kota for offences under Section 341, 323, 324 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 trial court that the petitioner who is a habitual offender does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. The bail application is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/