Tag: #accused

-Report by Sakshi Tanwar

This is the second application under Section 439 read with Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 166/2015, dated 16.11.2015, recorded at P.S. Crime Branch under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The initial application filed on behalf of the current applicant was rejected as withdrawn by a coordinate bench of this Court on February 31, 2018, with an instruction to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial.

FACTS

P.S. Crime Branch obtained classified information on alleged anti-national acts supported by Pakistan-based intelligence operatives. The operation in question was handled by an Indian. Information about the deployment of the Indian Army and the Border Security Force (“BSF”) in Jammu and Kashmir and passed it on to people across the border, threatening national security. The mobile phone numbers involved were intercepted, and the names of two people engaged – Kafaitullah Khan and Abdul Rasheed surfaced. Kafaitullah Khan lived in Rajouri and Abdul Rasheed served in the BSF. It was found that Abdul Rasheed gave classified material to Kafaitullah Khan in exchange for money, who then gave it to Pakistan intelligence operatives.  

Kafaitullah Khan came across his close friend Mohammad Saber, i.e., the present applicant, who was a primary school teacher. In confidence, Kafaitullah Khan told the applicant about his meeting with the aforesaid Pakistan intelligence officer and the task assigned to him. He agreed to the task by taking some money. Kafaitullah Khan got in touch with an ex-serviceman, Munawar, through the present applicant. Farid Khan had passed on some documents to Munawar, which were then passed on to Faizal-ur-Rehman through the present applicant. Mobile phones were recovered from Kafaitullah Khan, Abdul Rasheed, Munawar Ahmed Mir, Farid Khan and the present applicant. The Call Detail Records showed that the accused were in touch. Bank account details of all the accused persons were obtained from the concerned banksand it was found that Rs. 10,000/- were deposited in the account of the applicant. 

The found documents pertaining to the Indian Army were forwarded to the appropriate authorities for examination. It was discovered that the aforementioned documents were classified in nature. Following the completion of the investigation, the first chargesheet in the current case against Abdul Rasheed Khan, Munawar Ahmed Mir, Farid Ahmed, Kafaitullah Khan, and the present application was filed on February 23, 2016.

APPEALANT’S SIDE

The applicant, according to learned counsel acting on his behalf, was detained on December 5, 2015, and has been in judicial detention for more than 7 years. It was also claimed that he had been imprisoned for more than half the maximum time permitted for the crimes he was accused of committing. As a result, the petitioner is eligible to be released on bail under Section 436A of the CrPC. It was further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and the allegations against him are solely on the basis of the disclosure of Kafaitullah Khan and Abdul Rasheed. Learned counsel for the application testified that no incriminating material had been obtained from the applicant’s possession or from his domicile. Furthermore, no incriminating evidence was discovered on his laptop or camera. It was submitted that the prosecution has not been able to connect the Rs. 10,000/- transferred to the bank account of the applicant with any of the allegations made against him. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record which shows that the data alleged to be transmitted was passed on by the applicant.

JUDGEMENT

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties of the like amount, one of which should be a relative of the applicant, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to some conditions.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3LaNDh3

-Report by Harshit Gupta

Anticipatory bail was granted to all accused in the case of Mahmood Bava V. Central Bureau of Investigation decided on 20-03-2023. 

FACTS:

This case involves many accused, who were booked under sections 420, 466, 467 471 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this case, M/s. NaftoGaz India Pvt Ltd. secured a loan from a consortium of banks led by SBI. After 27.07.2012 the account of the bank was showing signs of sickness and on 22.11.2012, the account was classified as NPA, and on 03.02.2015, the account was declared fraudulent account. One property as security was found to be in litigation and another property was overvalued. Thereafter, the Loan Company lodged the FIR on 26.06.2019, and none of the accused was taken into custody by CBI. It seemed to the court that each accused cooperated in the investigation and the final report was filed by CBI on 31.12.2021, and after this, special courts issued summons for the appearance of all accused in the court on 07.03.2022. Therefore, apprehending arrest, the appellants moved to the special court with the application of Anticipatory Bail, which was rejected by the said Court and was confirmed by the High Court of Allahabad. Therefore, the Appellants approached Supreme Court. 

CONTENTIONS:

Respondent:

Accused no. 2, Shri Mahdoom Bava, is stated to be the promoter/director of the Company and he is alleged to be the kingpin. Accused no. 3, Shri Deepak Gupta is a third party who has allegedly given his personal guarantee. According to the prosecution, he claimed title to the property based on fictitious documents and he sold away some proportions of his property before the mortgage. Accused No. 10 was alleged to have created bogus bills and fake lorry receipts, in connivance with accused No. 2, to enable the Company to have the bills discounted. Accused 14 namely Yatish Sharma was alleged to have operated the account of M/s Shri Radhey Traders. The respondent also contended that the prime accused, no. 2, Mahdoom Bava, is also involved in 11 other cases.

JUDGEMENT:

In this, the judgement was delivered by Justice V. Rama Subramanian by granting SLP, as the criminal appeal arose from the SLPs. The judgement was so delivered and granted anticipatory bail to the accused on the basis that they cooperated through the investigation, and they would do so in future if they were summoned during the trial. The prayer of anticipatory bail was opposed vehemently by the respondent. But the court was of the view that there were three factors which tilted the balance in the favour of the accused. Factor one was that the custody of all accused was not required during the investigation, therefore, it is now hard to digest that custody is now required at this stage. Factor two is that in the case of Shree Deepak Gupta, CBI took the stand before the special court that the presence of the accused during the investigation is not required but it will surely need during the trial. Therefore, the Apex Court considered this as the only presence of all accused is required not the custody during the trial to face the trial. Factor three the Apex Court considered is that the complaint is borne out of records and the primary focus is on documentary evidence, so the court did not understand the arrest of all accused during this time as the offence was committed a decade ago. In the respondent’s contention of 11 cases, appeal arouse from 3 cases and 7 were of 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The eighth case is filed by an income tax officer for non-payment of the TDS amount. In this case, anticipatory bail was granted by the Court to all accused based on the findings of the Court. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Ksujg6

-Report by Sanya Luthra

The case Nadeem Chaudhary vs State of NCT Of Delhi was filed by the applicant for the application of regular bail as the complaint was registered against the applicant and his for the domestic violence and the trial had to take considerable time and therefore, he requested for bail as he couldn’t spend his entire time in custody.

FACTS:

The complaint was filed by Shri Sagir Ahmed, alleging that the appellant who was the husband of his daughter had harassed her and also beaten her due to which she died and it was said that before marriage also the appellant and his family were asking for dowry and after the marriage, their daughter was beaten, harassed on a regular basis because she didn’t bring the dowry as expected by the family and when the deceased once complained to her family about this her phone was broken by the appellant and also it was doubtful that the deceased has committed suicide or not because no evidence was found for same.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION:

The learned counsel submits that the allegations were made against the entire family and the father has already been granted bail but the applicant has not and the allegations were vague and no demand was made before her death of the dowry which is one of the essential, also it was submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 2020 and there are no chances that he will not cooperate in the pending trial and also it is of no use to believe that the petitioner would remove any evidence at this stage.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:

Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the bail application as it submits that the applicant and another accused have admitted to their involvement in the crime and also states that the deceased was brutally tortured by the applicant also was beaten when she informed her mother about the applicant’s extramarital affair.

JUDGMENT:

It was held by the hon’ble court that the trial would take considerable time and the accused was in custody already for 2 years no one can be deprived of his personal liberty and it can be assumed that the accused will cooperate in further trial and won’t remove any evidence and hence, regular bail could be granted with the penalty and some terms and conditions.

READ FULL JUDGMENT: https://bit.ly/3JcNb21

–Report by Tannu Dahiya

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has granted bail to the petitioner in the case of Rohit vs State of Himachal Pradesh while hearing the same on 20th February, 2023.

Facts:

Here the petitioner is a 28 year old man who is a permanent resident of Village Palsawan, Post Office, Chanog, Tehsil . He had been in a relationship with the respondent for the past three years. A FIR has been filed by her stating that the petitioner has been living with her and they had sexual relations repeatedly. But He refuses to marry her and had sexual intercourse by making false promises. 

Petitioner’s contentions:

The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail against the FIR no. 33/23 filed on 6th January 2023. He’s been in custody since then. He pleaded that the girl has been maintaining the relationship for a very long time . He accepted that his parents are against their marriage due to their caste differences. But he claims that he never made false promises to her and she voluntarily made physical relations with him. He is a permanent resident of village Palswan and promises to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed. 

Respondent’s contentions:

The learned additional advocate general opposed the plea for bail on the grounds that the petitioner has committed serious offence. The investigation is under process and 

He may try to mess with the evidence if he is granted bail. 

Judgement:

The single judge bench after hearing both the parties , pronounced the judgement that the girl is mature enough to take decision when she indulges herself in any unwanted relationship. Also she has been in a relationship for so long. It would not be just if the petitioner is kept in custody for an indeterminate period. The apprehension that he may mess with the evidence, can be taken care of by putting certain terms and conditions on him. Hence keeping in view all the facts, the petition is allowed and bail is granted. However it will be subject to certain conditions which are :

1.  He will appear before the court and investigation officer whenever required. 
2.  Will not threat or induce any person who is related to the facts of the case.
3. Will not mess with the evidences.
4. Will not repeat the offence.
5.  Will not act in a manner which will delay the trial in court.
6. Will not leave India without the permission of court

The Investigation agency can move for quashing this order if the above said points are violated. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3XMvsCL

Citation: Cr.MP(M) No.319 of 2023