Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: SC No. 2/20
State Vs. Kasim Ansari & Ors.
No. 300/19
PS: . Naraina
U/s. 395/397/411/412/34/120B IPC
& 25/54/59 Arms Act
16.12.2020
File taken up today on an application filed under Section 439 Cr. PC
on behalf of the applicant/accused Mohd. Razi for grant of bail.
Matter taken up through Video Conferencing from the residence.
Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, Additional PP for the State.
Sh. Mohd. Ataher Khan, Advocate for the applicant/accused Tasleem (through
V/C).
IO SI Sushil Malik is also present in court.
Reply to bail application filed, which is taken on record.
It has been argued by the learned defence counsel that the applicant is
innocent; he has nothing to do with the present case or that he has been falsely implicated
into the present case; investigation is complete; charge sheet has already been filed; no
recovery has been effected either from or at the instance of the applicant; no evidence has
been cited by the prosecution which places the applicant at the spot at the time of
commission of the alleged incident; TIP of the applicant was not got done and that no other
witnesses are remained to be examined, which may connect the present applicant with the
case crime; that the applicant is in J/C since 07.09.2019 and therefore no useful purpose
would be served by keeping him behind the bars. It is further submitted that applicant
belongs to a respectable family; that he undertakes not to directly or indirectly make any
-- 1 of 3 --
inducement, threat or promise to any person and that he is ready to abide by all the terms
and conditions so imposed by the court.
On the other hand, the bail application has been strongly opposed by the
learned Additional PP arguing that the applicant along with his coaccused are involved into
heinous offence of committing day light robbery; that through sheer intelligence, the
applicant and is Splendor motorcycle was zeroed down and after sustained interrogation, he
disclosed that he committed the robbery along with his other four associates; that the TIP of
the case property was got conducted in which the complainant had correctly identified the
same; the applicant had refused to participate in the TIP and the applicant/accused was
present at the spot, which fact can be verified from the CCTV footage. Further, certified
copies of the CDRs have been obtained, which further corroborates the case qua the
presence of the applicant at the spot at the time of commission of offence. It is also
submitted that the FSL result is awaited, which shall also be filed within 20 days, as per the
report given by Director FSL and that there is every possibility that he may abscond or
threaten the complainant and other witness if enlarged on bail. It is therefore prayed that the
applicant be not granted bail at this stage of the case and therefore the application deserves
dismissal.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances as also taking note of the
accusations and severity of allegations as also the fact that complainant and other
witnesses are yet to be examined and the possibility that on being released on bail,
applicant may abscond or contact, threaten or intimidate the complainant and other
witnesses, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused Shanu at this stage.
The application accordingly stands disposed of as dismissed.
-- 2 of 3 --
Copy of the order be sent to the applicant/accused through Superintendent
Jail as also to all the parties concerned.
(Anil Antil)
ASJ04/NDD/PHC/ND
16.12.2020
-- 3 of 3 --