A special jurisdictional court dismissed a bail application filed by two petitioners accused of dacoity and armed robbery under Sections 395 and 412 IPC, holding that the serious nature of the allegations and flight risk precluded release.
Bail application was not allowed; petitioners were to remain incarcerated pending trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM No. M-13624 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-13624 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2009
Yasin @ Imran and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This is a petition praying for regular bail to the petitioners in a case registered against them under Sections 395 & 412 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station SGM Nagar, NIT, Faridabad, vide FIR No.248 dated 28th August, 2008.
The allegation in the FIR is that on 28th August, 2008 at about 3.00 A.M., when the complainant and his wife were sleeping in their bed room, suddenly the door opened and 7-8 young persons with muffled faces barged into the room. One of them was carrying a country made pistol and rest were armed with weapons such as knife etc. They tore a white sheet and tied hands and legs of the complainant and his wife. Thereafter, they asked where the cash was lying. They robbed the complainant and his wife of their mobile phones and gold ornaments. The gold chain worn by the wife of the complainant around her neck was also snatched. The accused also searched almirahs etc. of the
CRM No. M-13624 of 2009 2
bedroom. Later it was found that number of gold ornaments and some cash as described in the FIR, were missing.
The petitioners are stated to have been arrested on 23rd September, 2008 and are incarcerated since then. They approached the court of Sessions at Faridabad for grant of bail. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioners had committed dacoity and they were operating as a gang . Moreover, in case enlarged on bail, they would pressurize the witnesses.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. He has argued that the petitioners have been implicated merely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and there is no evidence available against them. According to the counsel, the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail pending trial as they have been incarcerated for a fairly long period.
In the instant case, the allegations against the petitioners are quite serious in nature. They are alleged to have broken into the house of an old couple residing alone in the wee hours of the morning. Thereafter, they are alleged to have robbed the terrified couple of their gold ornaments and other articles as well as cash. The manner, in which the crime has been committed and the circumstances, do not entitle the petitioners to concession of bail. The chances of the petitioners, who belong to West Bengal, escaping from the process of law, cannot be ruled out. This apart, bail application of the petitioners were very recently dismissed by this court on 1st April, 2009.
CRM No. M-13624 of 2009 3
Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for enlarging the petitioners on bail. The bail petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
May 20, 2009 'rajpal'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an applicant charged with dacoity and armed robbery under Sections 395 and 412 IPC is entitled to be released on bail.
Whether the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of the accused escaping entitle the court to deny bail.
Whether the fact that the bail application was recently dismissed precludes granting bail at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yasin @ Imran and another
State of Haryana
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
