Bombay High Court
Irshad Isubba Khan @ Isad @ Jahid @ Subha ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2018
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
rpa 1/6 5-ba-1803-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1803 OF 2018
Irshad Isubba Khan .. Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
......
Ms.Dipika Gupta and Ms.Dipali Saudagar, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent - State.
......
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 8, 2018.
P.C. :
This is an application for bail in connection with C.R.
No.108 of 2018, registered with V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai,
which was subsequently transferred to in the Anti Extortion Cell
DCB, C.I.D. The offences were registered under Sections 364-A,
365, 342, 323, 387. 120 B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,
and 25 of Arms Act.
2 The prosecution case is that informant is in business
of Import and Export of copper metal. He has registered his
company in the name of "Yashvi Impress". The informant was
Digitally signed
Rajeshri by Rajeshri
Prakash Aher
Prakash Date:
Aher 2018.10.12
13:15:06 +0530
rpa 2/6 5-ba-1803-18.doc
contacted by one person stating that he is Rahul Jain and offered
copper metal for sale. The proposal given by him was attractive,
the complainant was induced to accept the same. In pursuant to
that the complainant went to Delhi by flight. On reaching Delhi,
he was taken to another place under the garb of completion of
transaction. He was detained in one premises. Than the accused
threatened the complainant to part with an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/-. The said amount was parted through Angadia,
and, thereafter, the complainant was set at liberty by the accused.
FIR was registered against unknown person. Applicant was
arrested on 9th September, 2018. Investigation is completed and
charge-sheet is filed.
3 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The co-accused
have granted bail and the applicant is entitled for bail on the
ground of parity. Although the applicant was identified in the
Test Identification Parade, while identifying, no specific role has
been assigned to him. However, statement of the complainant
was recorded in pursuant to the Test Identification Parade,
wherein he has stated that the applicant is a person who had kept
watch on the complainant on the date of incident. It is submitted
rpa 3/6 5-ba-1803-18.doc
that the Test Identification Parade was conducted on 4 th October,
2017. While the incident is dated 24th November, 2015, the
evidence of Test Identification Parade is defective firstly on the
ground that the parade was conducted belatedly and it is difficult
to accept that the applicant could be identified after such a gap of
time. It is also defective because while identifying, no role has
been assigned to the applicant and the statement recorded by the
complainant. The said statement is contradictory to the FIR. In
the FIR, the complainant has made reference to only one person
keeping watch on him who is already arrested and granted bail.
In the circumstances, the involvement of the applicant is doubtful
and he is entitled for bail. It is further submitted that there is no
recovery of any nature from the applicant. It is submitted that
although there are two cases pending against him, he was
granted bail in the said cases.
4 Learned APP submitted that applicant was arrested
on 9th September, 2017 and he was not available earlier. It is
further submitted that the applicant was arrested in another
offence and his custody was sought in the present case. Learned
APP drew my attention to the statement of complainant wherein
reference is made to the person armed with rifle keeping watch
rpa 4/6 5-ba-1803-18.doc
on the complainant. There are criminal antecedents against the
applicant. The case of the applicant can be distinguished from the
persons who are granted bail.
5 I have gone through the charge-sheet. FIR is
registered on 28th November, 2018. The informant makes
reference to one person keeping watch on the complainant while
he was confined in the house on the date of incident. The
statement of the complainant recorded on 17th February, 2016,
after the Identification Parade indicate that the accused who was
identified by him, namely, Irfan Khan, is the person who was
keeping watch on him when the complainant was confined in the
house on 24th November, 2015. Thus, it is the case of the
prosecution that the accused arrested earlier, namely, Irfan Khan,
was keeping watch on the complainant. The said accused has
been granted bail by the Sessions Court. It is also pertinent to
note that the co-accused Munsaid Harun Khan was granted bail
by this Court. The other accused Saqib Hynna Khan is granted
bail. The applicant's application was rejected by the Sessions
Court vide order dated 19th April, 2018. There are criminal
antecedents against the persons who are granted bail, but,
considering the role attributed to them, applications for bail were
rpa 5/6 5-ba-1803-18.doc
allowed. In the Circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail.
6 Hence, I pass the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Bail Application No.1803 of 2018, is allowed;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.108 of 2018, registered with V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai, on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report V.P. Road Police Station, Mumbai, on first Saturday of every month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, till further orders;
(iv) Applicant shall attend the trial Court on every date of hearing, unless exempted by the Court, for some reasons;
(v) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence;
rpa 6/6 5-ba-1803-18.doc
(vi) Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court;
(vii) Bail Application No.1803 of 2018, stands disposed of.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)