The court held that the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioners, including posing as police officers during a dacoity, warranted denial of bail to prevent tampering with evidence.

Headnote:(A) Cr. P.C. - Section 439 - Bail application - Petitioners sought bail under serious allegations of dacoity after disguising as police officers; recovered items being identified by complainant - PETITIONERS' youth and claims of false implication cannot outweigh the severity of the offense - No grounds for bail established. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners are implicated in a dacoity case where they posed as police officers and stole items from the complainant's office, including electronic devices and accessories. Several items have been recovered from their possession and identified in a TIP. (Paras 2-6)

Findings of Court:
The court emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for tampering with evidence, particularly given the nature of the alleged crime and the pending examination of public witnesses. (Paras 10)

Issues: The court addresses whether the petitioners pose a risk of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, given the serious nature of the charges against them. (Paras 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the gravity of the allegations against the petitioners justifies denying bail, as their actions indicated a likelihood of obstructing justice. (Paras 10)

Result: Bail applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. bail application context and procedural introduction. (Para 1)
2. details of the crime and evidence recovery. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments presented by both parties regarding bail. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's assessment of bail application's merits. (Para 10)
5. final decision on bail applications. (Para 11)

ORDER

(VIA VIDEO-CONFERENCING)

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. By way of this order, I shall dispose of the above mentioned two bail applications which have been filed by the above petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 144/2021, dated 27.03.2021 under Section 395 /411/419/452/34/120B IPC registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj South, New Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a PCR call vide DD No. 43A on 16.03.2021 was received regarding four five suspicious persons claiming themselves as police officials, have forcefully broken the electronic lock and have entered in the office of IYEO Technology Ghitorni, New Delhi and lifted many items from there. Preliminary enquiry was conducted and after receiving the statement of the complainant Sh. Mukesh Mahto S/o Sh. Mahander Mahto R/o No 35, Bhai Market, first floor, Canera Bank, Ghitorni, New Delhi, a case vide FIR No. 144/2021 Dt. 27.03.2021 U/s 392/419/34 IPC was registered and investigation was taken up.

3. During the investigation Sushant Raj, owner of IYEO Technology joined the investigation and he informed that his various items i.e. I-Pad. I-pencil three Laptops, three watches, DSLR Camera with lenses, DVR, Router, clothes etc. have been looted from his premises by the alleged persons. He further informed that he has been approached by one person namely Mohit, through whats app chat no. 9827454166, regarding asking for money in lieu of returning looted items. The mobile number provided by Sushant Raj was traced and alleged Smit Kumar S/o Parveen Singh R/o 1554 (old 1675), 3rd Floor, Sector-46, Main Road Gurugram, Haryana, was apprehended and arrested. The above-mentioned Mobile has been recovered from the alleged Smit. The same was taken into police possession through seizure memo.

4. On the basis of electronic surveillance and information, all other co-accused namely (1) Raguvinder Kundu, (ii) Sanjay Kapoor @ Ryan, (iii) Petitioner Manjeet Kumar @ Rony, (iv) Sourabh Bhatia and (v) Petitioner Muddasir @ Maddy were apprehended and arrested in this case. The disclosure statements of all the accused were recorded and they accepted their involvement in this case.

5. Looted items Canon Camera with lenses were recovered from the possession of petitioner Manjeet Kumar @ Rony and the same was taken into police possession through seizure memo.

6. One wrist watch make Tissor 1853 silver colour, one wrist watch make Fossil, grey colour and one laptop HP S/N 8CG6324RR5, were recovered from the possession of petitioner Muddasir @ Maddy and the same was taken into police possession through seizure memo.

7. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioners, Ld. APP for the State and have also perused the Status Report and the record of this case.

8. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are young persons in their early 20 and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Recoveries have already been effected. Two of the co-accused are already on bail. There is a delay in making the complaint and there is also a delay of 10 hours in making the PCR call.

9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that initially the case was registered U/s 392/419/34 IPC and section 395 IPC was added lateron and the allegations have now become serious as a dacoity has taken place in the midnight in the office of the complainant. He further submitted that the petitioners posed themselves as officers of the crime branch and then committed dacoity of the electronic items as mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already moved around 4 bai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document