Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ahsan @ Husan Alam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2017
MCRC-1872-2017
(AHSAN @ HUSAN ALAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
15-03-2017
Shri Vinit Kumar Mishra, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri D. K. Paroha, panel lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner Ahsan @ Hussain Alam in Crime No. 937/2015 registered by P.S. G.R.P., District Bhopal under Sections 328 and 392 of the I.P.C. As per the prosecution case, victim Moti Kapur and his wife Neelam were traveling in Kerala Express on 18.8.2015 from New Delhi to Vardha. After Bhopal Station, the petitioner and co-accused person befriended the couple and administered poison to them in biscuits. When the couple fell fast asleep, the petitioner and co-accused persons stole a ladies purse, containing a gold chain, an external hard disk and a Micromax mobile phone and a Nikon Camera from her purse. They also stole Rs. 600/- in cash, a Samsung galaxy phone from the person of victim Moti Kapur. About eight months after the date of the incident, on the disclosure statement made by the petitioner Ahsan, a Nikon Camera was seized from his possession.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested eight months after the date of the incident and thereafter, the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded. No camera number or identification mark has been mentioned in the First Information Report. The identification proceedings for either the camera or the petitioner have not been conducted. Charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and the petitioner has been in custody since 30.5.2016; therefore, it has been prayed that petitioner be released on bail. Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand submits that there are at least four cases of similar nature registered against the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is not resident of Madhya Pradesh; therefore, if he is released on bail, it will be difficult to make him face the trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that two of the aforesaid four cases have been fastened upon the petitioner on the date on which he was arrested in the present case.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact that:-
1. the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been recorded eight month after the date of incident;
2. no identification proceedings of the camera were conducted;
3. no identification proceedings of the petitioner has been conducted;
4. though there are other cases registered against the petitioner at least two of them have been fastened on which he was arrested in the present case;
5. the charge-sheet in case has been filed and the petitioner has been in custody since 30.5.2016;
-in the opinion of this Court, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. However, it will have to be ensured that he does not flee from justice.
Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of petitioner Ahsan @ Hussain Alam is allowed.
It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates fixed, for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and for refraining from committing any offence against property during the pendency of the present case.
C.C. as per rules.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE ahd