Bail Application No.1162/2022.
MHCC020063722022
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1162 OF 2022.
IN
CR. NO. 254 OF 2022.
Mohd. Koumail Nazim Hussain Meghji
… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance Dadar Railway Police
station Vide Cr. No. 254/2022.)
… Respondent
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. V. P. Agale for the applicant/accused.
Ld. APP Abhijeet Gondwal for the State.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 26th JULY, 2022
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Mohd. Koumail Nazim
Hussain Meghji being accused in C.R.No. 254/2022 registered with
Page 1 of 5
Bail Application No.1162/2022.
Dadar Railway Police Station for the offences punishable under Section
379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as,
“IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.
As on 01.04.2022 the informant was proceedings towards
Ghansoli from Sion station at platform no. 1 and boarded the slow local
at about 18.42 hours while boarding the train some unknown person
had stolen his mobile phone kept in right side of his pant pocket.
Accordingly, the informant lodged complaint with Dadar Railway police
station, offence was registered and upon investigation with the help of
CCTV footage it revealed that the applicant/accused was the person
who allegedly has stolen the mobile phone. Thereafter, the accused
was put under arrest as on 10.04.2022.
3.
The learned advocate for applicant/accused states that the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated.
Further the mobile was
recovered at the instance of the coaccused. It is also stated that the
applicant/accused is languishing behind bars since 10.04.2022 and
therefore it is stated that no fruitful purposes would be served by
detaining him ahead.
Hence, the learned advocate for the
applicant/accused prayed for enlargement of applicant/accused on bail.
4.
Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2
and inter alia had resisted the application of various grounds. It is
categorically stated that at the relevant point of time and on the alleged
day of incidence the applicant/accused was sole identified at the alleged
Page 2 of 5
Bail Application No.1162/2022.
spot.
CCTV Footage has categorically propelled for the presence of
applicant/accused. Further the prosecution has placed a chart of seven
such similar offences qua prior antecedents to the discredit of the
applicant/accused. The prosecution however apprehends abscondance
and tampering of evidence at the hands of applicant/accused. Hence,
the learned prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.
5.
Heard learned advocate for applicant/accused and learned
prosecutor for the State.
6.
Perused application and reply. On meticulous examination
of the case record it evinces to myself that, the prosecution has traced
the applicant/accused with the help of CCTV footage. Therefore, the
applicant/accused has failed to explain the very purpose of his presence
at the said spot.
7.
Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the primafacie case exists or
not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the merits
of prosecution case.
8.
Learned advocate for applicant /accused states that
considering the quantum of punishment the offence is bailable and
therefore no further detention is required. I have minutely perused the
sections invoked against applicant/accused. Considering the quantum
of punishment qua imprisonment is for a term which may extend to
three years or with fine or both. Considering this particular fact the
punishment can be inflicted for three years. Therefore, in view of the
Page 3 of 5
Bail Application No.1162/2022.
schedule of the criminal procedure code, the said offence would lie in
the category of nonbailable offence. Therefore, without any cogent
reasons and that the investigation is under progress, granting of such
relief would naturally derail the momentum of investigation. In the
backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that the application deserves no
consideration. Hence, order infra :
ORDER
Bail Application No. 1162/2022 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 26.07.2022.
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.07.29
16:36:03 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.37)
Dictated on
: 26.07.2022.
Transcribed on : 28.07.2022.
HHJ signed on : 29.07.2022
Page 4 of 5
Bail Application No.1162/2022.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
29.07.2022
04.34 p.m.
Mahendrasing D. Patil
(Stenographer GradeI)
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ DR. SHRI A. A. JOGLEKAR
Room No.)
(Court Room No. 37)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of
26.07.2022
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
29.07.2022
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
29.07.2022
Page 5 of 5