Bail may be granted even in serious allegations when the accused has no criminal history, investigation is complete, and co-accused have been released on bail, emphasizing fair trial rights.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 395, 482, 412, 201, 120B, 174A - Arms Act - Sections 24, 27 - Bail application in robbery case - Cognizance delayed due to lack of necessary sanction and FSL report - Delay in trial considered along with clean antecedents and absence of further investigative necessity; application for bail allowed despite serious allegations. (Paras 1.1, 5, 6)

(B) Bail considerations - The court emphasized that the absence of prior criminal history and the fact that other co-accused were granted bail are critical factors, coupled with the completed investigation indicating no further need for custody. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was accused of masterminding a robbery involving multiple perpetrators, significant cash, and valuables stolen, with claims of false implication and lack of evidence supporting the prosecution.

Issues: The court evaluated pressing issues regarding the applicant's criminal association, potential misuse of law, and the justifications for bail despite the serious nature of the allegations.

Findings of Court:
The court found the prolonged custody unnecessary given the applicant's conduct in jail and granted bail with conditions to ensure compliance during the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The ruling underscored that when an accused lacks a criminal history, has completed investigative procedures, and faces prolonged trial times, bail may be warranted despite serious accusations, especially when co-accused share similar circumstances.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. details regarding the fir and the allegations. (Para 1)
2. status of investigation and arrests. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. arguments presented for and against bail. (Para 5)
4. court's reasoning for granting bail. (Para 6)
5. conclusion and granting of bail. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J. This is an application for regular bail in case FIR No. 524/2020 under Sections 395/482/412/201/120B/174A IPC and Section 24/27 of Arms Act, PS Neb Sarai. It has been submitted that charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and matter is stated to be pending for taking cognizance and for committal to the Sessions Court. The cognizance is being delayed because necessary sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act has not been obtained and FSL report has not been filed on record.

1.1. The case, as detailed in the FIR is that on 09.12.2020, some 6-7 unknown persons forcibly entered house of the complainant and all of them were wearing masks and gloves and the said accused persons took away Rs.4 lakhs in cash, 4 gold chains, 2.5 kg silver, one bracelet and one digital camera and one of them was also carrying a gun.

1.2. During investigation, co-accused namely Arman Malik was arrested and name of the present petitioner appeared in the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner. He was declared PO. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by learned ASJ on 10.02.2022.

1.3. The bail has been prayed on the ground that the petitioner has been falsely implicated; he is not named in the FIR; there is no evidence against the petitioner; the petitioner was arrested on 01.06.2021 and since then he is languishing in jail from more than 8 months; investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed; co-accused namely Sandeep @ Fauzi, Shiv Kumar and Anil Kumar are already granted bail; IO has not obtained sanction under Section 39 Arms Act and FSL report has not been filed till date and undue delay is being caused in the matter; petitioner is 21 year old pursuing BA; he has clean antecedent and he is suffering from health problems in Jail; there is no scientific evidence linking the present petitioner to the crime; the petitioner was arrested after six months of the alleging incident and, therefore, recovery of weapon shown puts serious doubt on the prosecution story; there was no occasion for the complainant to identify the present petitioner during TIP proceedings as in the FIR it is mentioned all the accused persons were wearing masks and gloves, so story of the prosecution is in doubt; jewellery and other articles have been recovered from co-accused persons, who are already on bail; the petitioner was illegally detained by police and he was mercilessly beaten and he had filed a writ petition, so as a matter of revenge, he was arrested and roped in the present case.

2. Notice was issued. Status report has been filed.

3. It has been mentioned in the Status Report that three accused persons were arrested on secret information on 12.12.2020. During investigation, recoveries were made from the said accused persons. On 14.12.2020, three more accused persons were arrested at the instance of already arrested accused persons and certain recoveries were made. During the sustained interrogation, accused persons disclosed that applicant Mohd. Azahruddin was master-mind of the crime and he was also present at the place of occurrence at the time of commission of offence as well as during conspiracy. Sincere efforts were made to trace the applicant/petitioner but no clue was found and ultimately he was declared PO vide order dated 08.04.2021. The reward of Rs.25,000/- was also declared against the present accused/applicant and he was arrested on 01.06.2021. Three days PC remand was obtained, the weapon of offence, i.e., country made Katta and part of looted ornaments and mobile phones were recovered at the instance of the present accused. He was duly identified du

Click Here to Read the rest of this document