Bombay High Court
Ali Raza Haider Ali Jaffery @ Jaffari vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 August, 2021
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
rpa 1/6 14 ba 3307 2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3307 OF 2019
Ali Raza haider Ali Jaferr Jafari .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents
......
Mr.Sana Raees Khan, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent - State.
Ranjit Vasant Walake, PSI Narpoli Police Station, Bhiwandi,
Thane Citr, present.
......
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : AUGUST 25, 2021.
P.C. :
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. The applicant was arrested on 20th Februarr, 2016, in
connection with C.R.No.I-91 of 2016, registered with Narpoli
Police Station on 20th Februarr, 2016, for the ofence punishable
under Section 394 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for
Digitally
short).
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2021.08.30
17:17:07
+0530
2 First Information Report ("FIR", for short) alleges
that on date of incident, the complainant had visited temple, and,
rpa 2/6 14 ba 3307 2019.doc
thereafter, proceeded to market for shopping. At about 06:15
p.m., while the complainant was waiting for auto-rickshaw, two
persons came to the spot on motorcrcle and stopped near her,
and made some inquiries with her. Ther were followed br two
other persons on motorcrcle. The pillion rider snatched her
Mangalsutra and gold chain. Ther went towards Bhiwandi road
railwar station. The complainant shouted for help. On hearing her
shouts, one person, standing near place of incident gave kick on
motorcrcle driven br accused who had snatched ornaments. Two
of them fell down. The police caught two persons. Two accused
who proceeded returned back to the spot. Ther got down from
motorcrcle. Ther threatened people who had apprehended two
accused. One of them took out knife and threatened people. When
other members of public came to the spot of incident. two of them
ran awar. Two persons were nabbed at spot. There names were
Ali Raza Haider Ali Jafari and Taufq Mausam Jafari. Ther were
handed over to the police. The names of the two accused who
were managed to fee were disclosed as Gulam Hassain Msam
Irani and Mohammed Jafri. Approval was granted for applring the
provisions of MCOC Act. Subsequentlr, sanction was granted for
applring the provisions of MCOC Act.
rpa 3/6 14 ba 3307 2019.doc
3 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is in custodr from 20th Februarr, 2016. He is in jail for a
period of more than fve rears. There is no progress in the trial.
The prosecution has cited about 77 witnesses. It is not clear as to
when the trial would commence and come to an end. The accused
cannot be incarcerated in custodr for indefnite period. The
punishment provided for the ofence under Sections of IPC is not
punishable with death. Even if the accused are convicted for
ofence under the MCOC Act, the sentence which could be
awarded is upto fve rears. In all the cases relied br prosecution,
the applicant is on bail. The applicant has not been convicted in
anr cases. The onlr role involved the applicant is that he was
riding the motorcrcle and not the person who snatched the
ornaments of the complainant. The applicant has been falselr
implicated in this case. The accused cannot be subjected to pre
trial detention for indefnite period. The co-accused who were
also attributed role in the present crime were granted bail br the
Special Court under the MCOC Act. Learned counsel relied upon
the bail order of co-accused Ali Zahur Jafari alias Irani, Abbas
alias Abbasi alias Tarzan Majlum Khan, Ali Johar Jafari alias Irani
and Faizal Ali Yusuf Ali Shaikh alias Ali Mamu. Learned counsel
also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in support of
rpa 4/6 14 ba 3307 2019.doc
her submission for grant of bail. Reliance is placed on the
decision in the case of Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Dated 7th April, 20051;
Bhupendra @ Golu s/o. Suryakumar Borkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, delivered br Bombar High Court, Nagpur Bench
dated 19th August, 2016, and the Supreme Court decision in the
case of Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central Bureau
of Investigation dated 27th Julr, 2021.2 It is submitted that in all
the aforesaid decisions, the Court have considered the
parameters for grant of bail. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi
(Supra), the accused was granted bail on the ground that he was
in custodr for eight and half rears, although, the recording of
evidence was almost concluded.
4 Learned APP submitted that there is suficient
evidence to show the complicitr of the applicant. He was
apprehended on the spot. He is the gang leader. 34 cases are
registered against him. The applicant is one of the main accused.
The confessional statement recorded under Section 18 of MCOC
Act, shows the involvement of the applicant. The co-accused has
been granted bail considering the overtact attributed to them.
1 Manu/SC/0268/2005
2 Spl.(Cri.)3610 of 2020
rpa 5/6 14 ba 3307 2019.doc
The applicant, however, has plared prime role in the ofence. He
is the head of the crime srndicate. Hence, in view of restrictions
under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act, the application for bail mar
be rejected.
5 The applicant is involved in the ofence under Section
394 of IPC. The applicant was apprehended on the spot. The
applicant and co-accused were involved in snatching ornaments
of complainant. The prosecution has opposed the grant of bail br
flling afidavit-in-replr. The replr refers to registration of 34
cases against the applicant. Apparentlr, all the cases were
registered under Section 392 and 394 of IPC. Assuming that there
is no conviction against the applicant in these cases, fact remains
that he is involved in several cases relating to the ofence of
robberr. Considering the material, the provisions of MCOC Act
were invoked. During the course of investigation, statements of
ere witnesses have been recorded, which reveals that the
applicant was driving the motorcrcle and the co-accused (pillion
rider) has snatched the Mangalsutra and gold chain of the
complainant. It was revealed that the motorcrcle used in the
ofence was stolen br the co-accused. The applicant confessed
that he along with the co-accused have committed another
robberr at Vithalwadi railwar station and on the basis of
rpa 6/6 14 ba 3307 2019.doc
memorandum statement, gold chain and necklace was recovered
from the applicant. The statements of co-accused Taufq Mausam
Irani alais Jafari were recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC
Act, which reveals that the applicant is one of the main accused.
According to prosecution, he is the gang leader. He is conducting
crime srndicate. The entire gang is involved in 122 ofences of
chain snatching and robberies and apparentlr, the applicant
individuallr is involved in 32 cases, relating to robberr. Role of
accused who were granted bail can be distinguished. He is not
entitled for bail on the ground that he is in custodr for substantial
period. Considering the nature of ofence, the evidence against
the applicant and antecedents and in the light of the embargo
under Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act, no case for grant of bail is
made out and hence application deserves to be rejected.
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Bail Application No.3307 of 2019, is rejected and stands disposed of;
(ii) Trial is expedited.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)