Delhi High Court - Orders
Rahil Hussain vs State Of Nct Delhi on 16 October, 2023
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2437/2023
RAHIL HUSSAIN ..... Applicant
Through: Mohammad Arif and Mohammad
Uvaish, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for
the State with SI Akshay, PS.
Shaheen Bagh
Mohd. Shahzad Ansari, Advocate
for complainant alongwith
complainant in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 16.10.2023
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [Cr.P.C.] seeking regular bail in FIR No.214/2022 dated 08.06.2022 under Sections 380/411/454/120B/34 IPC at PS.: Shaheen Bagh, Delhi.
2. As per the FIR, when the complainant returned to his house around 07:30 PM on 07.06.2022, he found that the locks of the house broken and Rs.63 lakhs missing from the locker and another bag containing his documents such as the cheque-book, a pair of earrings and lose cash of Rs.25,000/- missing inside.
BAIL APPLN. 2437/2023 Page 1 of 4This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2023 at 22:43:40
3. During the course of investigation, based on the CDRs of the co- accused, the applicant was apprehended in Nainital, Uttarakhand and was arrested on 11.06.2023 and is in judicial custody since then. The charge- sheet was filed on 06.08.2022. The matter is presently at the stage of framing of charge.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has no connection whatsoever with the commission of the alleged offence. He submits that in the absence of any explanation as to why the complainant had such a huge amount of money in his house creates suspicion as to the story of the prosecution. He further submits that no recovery was made from the applicant. He also submits that the applicant has clean antecedents and in any event since the chargesheet has already been filed, the investigation is complete and the applicant's custody is no more required. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that since the trial is likely to take some time, and the applicant has already been in custody for over 1 year and 3 months, the applicant be released on bail.
5. Notice was issued and Status Report and Nominal Roll were called for. As per the Nominal Roll of the applicant, the applicant has been in judicial custody for more than 1 year and 4 months as on date. Further, his overall jail conduct has been 'Satisfactory'.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State, relying upon the Status Report, opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the CDRs of the applicant's mobile number reveal that the applicant was present near the house of the complainant at the time of the commission of the offence. He further submits that Rs.8 lakhs were recovered from the sister of the BAIL APPLN. 2437/2023 Page 2 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2023 at 22:43:40 applicant and another Rs.5 lakhs were recovered from the parental house of the applicant. He further submits that the weapon used in breaking the locks of the house was also recovered from an apartment rented by the applicant in Jasola Village. He lastly submits that since two of the co- accused are still absconding and a substantial amount of the looted amount is yet to be recovered, the applicant be not released on bail as there is every possibility that the applicant may jump bail and tamper with the evidence.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State and perused the documents on record.
8. A perusal of the CDR records reveals the presence of the applicant on the date and at the time of the offence. It is a matter of fact that recoveries of substantial amount(s) have been made from his own relatives consisting of his own sister and parents. Although, it is also a matter of fact that the complete amount of loot is yet to be recovered. So much so, the alleged tools used for breaking open have also been recovered from the power and possession of the applicant. It is not disputed that two co-accused implicated with the applicant are still absconding. The aforesaid raises a doubt and suspicion in the mind of this Court that there seems to be possibility of the applicant, if released on bail, fleeing from justice by jumping bail and/ or tampering with evidence.
9. It is relevant that this Court, while considering granting bail to an applicant has to take into account the conditions explicitly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496; State of Uttar Pradesh BAIL APPLN. 2437/2023 Page 3 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2023 at 22:43:41 vs. Amaramani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; and Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 559, which are as under:-
i. whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; ii. nature and gravity of the accusation; iii. severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; iv. danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
v. character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused;
vi. likelihood of the offence being repeated; vii. reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and viii. danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.
10. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix involved and the settled position of law and keeping in mind the precautions to be taken while granting bail to an applicant involved in offence(s) like the present one, this Court does not consider this a fit case for grant of bail at this stage.
11. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
12. Needless to mention, observations made, if any, on the merits of the matter are purely for the purposes of adjudicating the present application and shall not be construed as expressions on the merits of the matter.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J OCTOBER 16, 2023/akr BAIL APPLN. 2437/2023 Page 4 of 4 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/10/2023 at 22:43:42