Order 26

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL ANTIL; ASJ 04, PHC, NEW DELHI
SC No. 02/2020
FIR No. 300/2019
u/s 394/395/397/342/412/414/120-B/34 IPC
& 27/54/59 Arms Act.
PS Naraina
State Vs. Kasim Ansari & Ors.
21.02.2022
File taken up today on an application as filed on behalf of
applicant/accused Fardeen Siddqui @ Shamee under Section 439
Cr.P.C for seeking Regular bail , which is listed for today.
Present Sh. M. Fazal, learned counsel for the applicant/
accused Fardeen Siddqui.
Sh. S.K.Kain, learned Addl. PP for the State.
Reply to the application already filed.
It was argued by learned counsel for the
applicant/accused that he is in judicial custody since 07.09.2019 ;
charge sheet of the case has been filed and charge has been
framed ; accused is not required for the purpose of further
investigation; that no recovery was effected from his person and
the recoveries as shown by the prosecution are planted upon him.
It is submitted that complainant Smt. Sushma (PW-1)
and Smt Zubeda (PW-2 ) have already been examined; PW-2 has
failed to identify the accused as one of the perpetrator of the
-- 1 of 5 --
alleged case crime; that in fact PW-2 has turned hostile and has
not supported the case of prosecution. That these were the only
two material witnesses who already stands examined in the court
and the remaining witnesses are police officials and therefore no
chance of the applicant/accused influencing or threatening the
witnesses.
It is further stated that the applicant belongs to a
respectable family, has clean antecedents and not involved in any
other case and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him
behind the bars for the unlimited period. It is further submitted
that three co-accused persons similarly placed ( Shanu, Mohd.
Razi & Kasim Ansari) have already been released on regular bail.
Further, without stressing much on the merits, learned
counsel pleaded that the applicant is of young age, about 19 years
old at the time of the incident, and has already spent two and a
half years in judicial custody; he has clean antecedents; and
further that further he pursuing tenth class studies from Open
School and therefore a request is made to take lenient view, to
ensure that the future of the applicant is not spoiled by keeping
him in the company of hardened criminal in custody.
On the other hand, bail application is opposed by the
learned Addl. PP for the State mentioning that the accused
Fardeen Siddiqui alonwith his co accused is involved into a
heinous and serious offence of committing the day light robbery ;
the trial of the case is at initial stage and other cited prosecution
witnesses are yet to be examined. However, during arguments, it
-- 2 of 5 --
was fairly conceded by the prosecution that complainant Smt.
Sushma (PW-1) and another eye witness Smt Zubeda (PW-2) of
the prosecution have been examined and PW-2 has not supported
the case of the prosecution nor identified the applicant.
It is however submitted that PW-1 (complainant) has
identified the applicant as one of the persons who had committed
the case crime, had also tried to strangulate her and put her neck
in the wash basin of the kitchen at the time of committing robbery.
To refute the identification in the court, it is submitted
that PW-1 has stated in her examination that “she has identified
the applicant from the dossier shown to her by the IO” therefore
her identification of the applicant in the court is also seriously
shrouded in the cloud.
Further, the learned Additional PP submits that
applicant has clean antecedents, not involved to any other case
and is of young age, studying, therefore, benefit of the same may
be granted to him.
Heard and record perused.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note
of the custody period, his clean antecedents and that applicant is a
young boy aged about 19 years and pursuing his studies from
Open Board; additionally, two material witnesses i.e. complainant
and eye witness of the prosecution have already been examined,
and due to suspension of regular court work, it will take
considerable time in examination of other witnesses, who mostly
are police officials, accordingly, the application for seeking regular
-- 3 of 5 --
bail of applicant/accused Fardeen Siddiqui @ Shamee is allowed
and he is admitted to regular bail on his furnishing a Personal
Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount
subject to following conditions :-
1. That the accused shall furnish mobile number, in his bail
bond and to the concerned IO/SHO against receipt, and the same
shall be kept operational at all times during the period of his bail so
that he can be contacted at any time.
2. That the accused shall not try to tamper with or influence any
prosecution witness in any manner whatsoever during the period
of his bail, in this case.
3. That the accused shall not indulge in any similar offence
while on bail.
4. that applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to the complainant or any person / witness
of the prosecution;
5. that the applicant shall join the investigation as and when
required or so intimated by the IO through notice;
6. that in case he changes his mobile number or residential
address or work place, he shall inform the IO/SHO or to the learned
trial court forthwith;
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Matter be put up on date already fixed in the matter.
Intimation in this regard with copy of order be sent to Jail
Supdt. for necessary compliance.
-- 4 of 5 --
Copy of order be given dasti to learned counsel for
applicant/accuse and IO.
Order be up loaded on the official website.
(Anil Antil)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/21.02.2022
-- 5 of 5 --