Liberty Must Give Way When It Threatens Societies' Collective Interests: Bombay High Court Denies Bail To History Sheeter Having Serious Criminal Antecedents

The Bombay High Court has held that when a person is a history sheeter having serious criminal antecedents, then Article 21 would not come to the rescue of such an accused, as such a right under Article 21 is not an absolute right.

It was observed that while the Accused had been incarcerated for over two years without charges being framed, his extensive criminal history of grave bodily offences—including attempt to murder, kidnapping, and dacoity—outweighed the ground of prolonged pre-trial detention.

The Court took note of the Accused's continuous misuse of judicial liberty in past cases, ruling that criminal antecedents are directly tethered to an accused's likelihood of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses, thereby making him unfit for enlargement on bail.

The Bench of Justice MM Nerlikar observed, "The right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not an absolute right. When the applicant is a history sheeter having serious criminal antecedents then in such circumstances Article 21 would not come to the rescue of such accused. Although personal liberty is a cherished constitutional value, it is not absolute. Liberty must give way when it threatens the collective interests of society. No individual can assert a freedom that imperils the life or liberty of others."

Advocate S.A. Mohta appeared for the Applicant, while APP A.M. Kadukar appeared for the Respondent-State. 

Brief Facts of the Case

The present application was preferred by the Accused seeking regular bail in connection with a criminal case registered at Ramnagar Police Station, District Chandrapur. The Accused faced prosecution for various heinous offences, including murder, criminal conspiracy, rioting, and unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code, alongside provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act and the Arms Act.

The prosecution's case originated from a report lodged by the informant, who alleged that the deceased used to work as a contractor for the Accused but subsequently severed professional ties. Disputes subsequently arose between the Accused, a co-accused, and the deceased regarding regular loan installments for a two-wheeler purchased by the Accused in the name of the deceased. On the night of the incident, the co-accused reportedly summoned the deceased to the front of the Accused's office using abusive language. Upon the arrival of the deceased, the Accused allegedly assaulted him with a knife on a vital body part, while the co-accused subjected him to fist and kick blows. The deceased subsequently succumbed to his injuries, leading to the registration of the criminal case against the Accused.

Contentions of the Parties

The Accused relied upon the ground of prolonged pre-trial detention. It was urged that despite the timely filing of the charge-sheet and the committal of the case to the Sessions Court, charges had not been framed against the Accused. It was contended that the continuous incarceration without trial violated the Accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To substantiate the plea for enlargement on bail, reliance was placed on specific judgments of the Supreme Court emphasizing that personal liberty should be protected when trials are delayed.

The State emphasized the heinous nature of the crime wherein the Accused inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased. It was submitted that the Accused's earlier bail application had already been rejected on merits by the High Court, and the subsequent Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed. The prosecution highlighted that the Accused was a history-sheeter with numerous criminal antecedents, including grave bodily offences. It was argued that his release would pose a serious threat to society.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that while personal liberty is a cherished constitutional value, the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not absolute. Individual liberty must give way when it threatens the collective interest and safety of society.

It was noted that a history-sheeter with grave criminal antecedents involving offences like attempt to murder, kidnapping, and dacoity cannot claim the unqualified benefit of Article 21. The Court emphasized that granting bail mechanically without considering the past conduct of the accused would be arbitrary and perverse.

The Court distinguished the judicial precedents cited by the Accused, noting that the judgments where bail was granted despite criminal antecedents were decided on their own peculiar merits and did not strictly apply to the present factual matrix governing delay in trial.

"Criminal antecedents are not merely a matter of record, but bear directly on whether an accused is likely to abide by bail conditions, refrain from repeating offences, or desist from intimidating witnesses. Where an accused carries multiple antecedents for offences as grave as those under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, such antecedents must weigh heavily against the grant of bail", it said.

The Court took adverse note of the Accused's continuous involvement in subsequent offences despite being granted bail in earlier cases. This demonstrated a propensity to misuse judicial liberty and established that the Accused was not a law-abiding citizen.

While acknowledging the protracted period of the Accused's incarceration, the Court concluded that the individual's right to liberty was outweighed by the societal menace posed by the Accused. Finding the Accused unfit for regular bail due to his extensive criminal history, the Court rejected the application.

Cause Title: Swapnil v. State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation:2026:BHC-NAG:7555]

Appearances:

Applicant: Advocate S.A. Mohta

Respondent: APP A.M. Kadukar

Click here to read/download the Judgment