BAIL APPLN. 2782/2022
MOHD JUNAID QURESHI vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
The bail application was filed under section 439 (Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail) Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 341/2021, registered at police station Laxmi Nagar, under Sections 392/397/411/201/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Bail application before HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN.
The Indian Penal Code 1860
|Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
|Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
|Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender
|Punishment for robbery
|Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
|Dishonestly receiving stolen property
THE ARMS ACT, 1959
|Punishment for certain offences.
|Punishment for using arms, etc.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The FIR was registered on a statement of Alauddin who alleged that he with another employee, Pawan working in the Branch office of Mannapuram Finance Ltd., were going to deposit cash of Rs.9.5 lakhs in bank.
They were robbed on gunpoint by two persons near Metro Station, Laxmi Nagar. Those two persons fled away on a motorcycle with another associate who was standing there.
In investigation, it was found that the motorcycle was in possession of accused Javed at the time of incident. Javed was arrested on 16.06.2021, who revealed that the offence was committed with other co-accused persons, Aslam, Imran Junaid (applicant) and Pooja (employee of Mannapuram Finance Ltd).
The prosecution alleged that accused Pooja and Aslam planned to loot the cash of Mannapuram Finance Ltd. Aslam then included accused Imran, Javed and Junaid in this conspiracy.
Imran, Javed and Pooja were arrested on 16.06.2021. Rs.95,000/- was recovered from Javed and Rs.1.20 lakh was recovered from the Imran.
The applicant (Junaid) of the current application was arrested on 21.06.2021 on a disclosure statement given by Javed. Country made pistol were also recovered from Junaid and Aslam.
The learned counsel for the applicant contended that all the co-accused persons had been granted bail and that his client he is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. He submits that the applicant is a young man of 24 years of age and has been falsely implicated and that the country made pistol was planted on the applicant. He also pointed out that there were no public witnesses to the said recovery.
Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of bail as he contended that the role of the applicant was not similar to the other co-accused persons.
It was not disputed that co-accused Pooja who even, as per the prosecution, was mastermind of the crime has been granted bail by this Court by an order dated 24.08.2021.
The recovery of country made pistol was also alleged to have been made from co-accused Aslam, who was granted bail by the learned Trial Court by order dated 06.08.2022.
The applicant is stated to be involved in other cases as well. In those cases, he is either on bail or has been acquitted. But the applicant’s council took shelter of the Hon’ble Supreme Court case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648 where it was observed that mere pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot itself be the basis for refusal of bail.
The council of the applicant also states that all the accused have been granted bail and the apprehension of tampering evidence can be taken care by putting appropriate conditions.
After examining the facts the Court considering the role of the applicant and the period of custody already undergone granted bail to the applicant.
The applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, subject to the following terms and conditions:
- The applicant shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without prior permission of the concerned Court
- The applicant , upon his release should provide his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times during the pendency of the trial
- (In case of change of residential address or contact details, the applicant shall promptly inform the concerned Investigating Officer as well as to the concerned Court regarding the changes
- The applicant should regularly appear before the Trial Court as and when directed
- The applicant should not directly/indirectly try to get in touch with the complainant or any other prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
The present application was allowed as per the above terms.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.