Mumbai, July 29, 2022 – Mohd. Koumail Nazim Hussain Meghji’s bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge in Mumbai. Meghji was arrested in connection with Crime No. 240/2022, registered at Dadar Railway Police Station, for an offense under Section 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Allegations
On April 1, 2022, the complainant was boarding a slow local train at Sion station when his mobile phone was stolen from his pocket. Following a complaint, the police, with the help of CCTV footage, identified Meghji as the alleged thief. He was arrested on April 10, 2022.
Meghji’s Defense and Arguments
Advocate V.P. Agale, representing Meghji, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He stated that the mobile phone was recovered at the instance of a co-accused. He also argued that Meghji had been in custody since April 10, 2022, and that further detention would serve no purpose.
Prosecution’s Objections
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Abhijeet Gondwal opposed the bail application, arguing that Meghji was identified at the scene of the crime through CCTV footage. The prosecution also presented a chart of seven similar prior offenses attributed to Meghji. They expressed concerns about absconding and tampering with evidence.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar considered the submissions and the documents on record. The court noted that the prosecution had traced Meghji with the help of CCTV footage, and he had failed to explain his presence at the scene.
“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,” Judge Joglekar stated in the order.
The court emphasized that while deciding a bail application, it is required to see whether a prima facie case exists, without conducting a detailed examination of the merits of the prosecution’s case.
Regarding the argument that the offense was bailable, the court noted that Section 379 of the IPC provides for imprisonment up to three years, which makes it a non-bailable offense according to the schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“Considering this particular fact the punishment can be inflicted for three years. Therefore, in view of the schedule of the criminal procedure code, the said offence would lie in the category of nonbailable offence,” Judge Joglekar stated.
The court concluded that granting bail would derail the investigation and that the application deserved no consideration.
Order
Bail Application No. 1163/2022 was rejected.
Key Points
- CCTV Footage: The court relied heavily on CCTV footage that placed Meghji at the scene of the crime.
- Prior Offenses: The prosecution presented evidence of seven similar prior offenses attributed to Meghji.
- Non-Bailable Offense: The court determined that the offense under Section 379 of the IPC was non-bailable.
- Investigation Progress: The court noted that the investigation was ongoing and that granting bail would hamper it.
- Prima Facie Case: The court emphasized that it was only required to see if a prima facie case existed.