Mukul Kumar Vs State of Punjab

¶1

REEMA SAINI 2026.07.21 08:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶2

2

¶3

CRM-M-18476 of 2026(O&M)

¶4

Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail submitting that petitioner, as per his own disclosure, was involved in another 13 other cases of similar nature. He was a habitual offender and given his antecedents, was not entitled the concession of bail.

¶5

Grant of bail though a discretionary power of the Court, such discretion has to be exercised in a judicious manner, and not as a matter of course. While considering prayer for bail, not only the nature of the accusation and evidence in support thereof is to be considered, the character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused, are equally important considerations as also the likelihood of the offence being repeated. 6. Following observations of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in

¶6

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ,

¶7

would be relevant in this context:

¶8

"9. ... among other circumstances, the factors [which are] to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

¶9

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

¶10

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

¶11

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

¶12

(iv) the danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

¶13

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

¶14

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

¶15

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

¶16

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases does not retain an individual character. It, on occasion and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to society. The

¶17

REEMA SAINI 2026.07.21 08:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

3

¶19

CRM-M-18476 of 2026(O&M)

¶20

victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society, which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to society..............’

¶21

Thus, antecedents of and circumstances peculiar to the accused

¶22

must be considered while deciding the prayer for bail. Petitioner has himself disclosed in para-24 of his petition that he is involved in 13 cases. Out of 13, 12 pertain to the offence of cheating, besides other offences. Custody certificate of petitioner, placed on record by the State counsel, during the course of arguments, reveals that he is undergoing trial in 12 cases. Apart from that he has been convicted in 7 cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Still further, production warrant has been issued against him in six other cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and another case under Section 406 IPC. Antecedents of petitioner indicate his strong propensity towards crime. The criminal history of the petitioner, nature of the crime, the high probability of the petitioner indulging in similar offences while on bail and the larger interest of society are factors which, in the considered opinion of this Court, do not entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail. The prayer for release of petitioner on regular bail is therefore declined.

¶23

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶24

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE

¶25

20.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes reema Whether reportable : No

¶26

REEMA SAINI 2026.07.21 08:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Mukul Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandeep Kaur Alias Mandeep Kaur Sarao Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harpreet Singh @ Happy Vs State of Punjab

Akhil Alias Chandu Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh @ Happy Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Parveen Kumari and Others Vs State of Haryana

Pawandeep Singh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab