The court affirmed that custodial interrogation is essential for unearthing conspiracy and recovering stolen property, emphasizing that interim protection does not guarantee bail.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 438 and 439 - Anticipatory bail applications - The court emphasized that custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover conspiracy and secure recovery of stolen property - Applicants charged under Sections 420, 120B, and 34 IPC - Accusations include deception during the sale of a high-value gemstone - CCTV footage corroborated the prosecution's claim of a pre-planned conspiracy involving multiple co-accused. (Paras 1-13)

(B) Anticipatory bail - The court highlighted that mere possession of interim protection does not justify automatic bail, and past FIRs do not nullify present charges - The court must consider the role of each accused and the means used to deceive the complainant. (Paras 7-11)

Facts of the case:
The complainant was deceived in a gemstone sale scheme, resulting in the loss of a Neelam stone valued at Rs. 3 Crores, facilitated through a conspiracy by the accused and accomplices.

Findings of Court:
The court found that grounds for bail were not established, given the seriousness of the conspiracy and the implications of the complainant's claims about his wife's illness.

Issues: The main issues included the necessity for custodial interrogation and the implications of prior FIRs on the current charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the charges filed warrant serious scrutiny and that custodial interrogation is essential to fully investigate the conspiracy, citing Supreme Court precedents that underline the importance of considering multiple factors when assessing bail applications.

Result: Applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. basis of bail applications and fir details (Para 1 , 2)
2. evidence from investigation and cctv footage (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. status of accused and charges (Para 6)
4. defense arguments for bail applications (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. prosecution's response to defense (Para 11)
6. court’s reasoning and observations (Para 12)
7. conclusion and dismissal of bail applications (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. Four separate applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners, Rajeev Arora (BAIL APPLN. 3817/2020), Naveen Sagar (BAIL APPLN. 3821/2020), Sanjay Awasthi (BAIL APPLN. 3884/2020) and Mohd. Akhtar (BAIL APPLN. 4381/2021) in FIR No. 54/2020, under Section 420/120B/34 IPC, registered at PS Budh Vihar.

An application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.PC has also been preferred on behalf of the petitioner Raman Abrol (BAIL APPLN. 2652/2022) in the aforesaid FIR.

2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, complainant Mohd. Iqbal alleged that he is a permanent resident of Lal Bazar, Alamdhar Colony, Srinagar, Kashmir and presently residing with one of his acquaintance Shri Prashant Kumar at Sector-5, Rohini, Delhi. He had an ancestral Kashmir- Blue-Sapphire (Neelam) stone weighing 13.03 carats, which he intended to sell on account of dire need of money for purpose of treatment of his wife. For the aforesaid purpose, he discussed the same with one Fayaz R/o Baramullah, Kashmir (proclaimed offender in present case), who was already known to him. About five days prior to lodging of FIR i.e. 25.02.2020, Fayaz called him and informed that he could help him in selling the Neelam to some prospective buyer. Further on 22.02.2020, Fayaz fixed a meeting at Crown Plaza, Sector-10, Rohini in room no. 1509 with one Raman (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 2652/2022) who claimed himself to be a South Indian and having his in-laws at Jammu. Fayaz informed the complainant that Raman would give an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as token amount after seeing the Neelam and the balance amount would be paid after testing of Neelam in laboratory. Thereafter, on 24.02.2020, Fayaz came near the residence of complainant along with his associates and asked him to show the Neelam. Complainant insisted them for coming inside the house, but he was asked to show Neelam to them in the Innova Car. It is further the case of complainant that he came near to Car bearing No. MH-05-BJ-9800 and handed over the Neelam to Raman and another person who was sitting in front seat. At aforesaid time, suddenly 4 to 5 persons came shouting `Police-Police' on which Raman ran away from the place after keeping the Neelam with him. As such it was alleged that Raman and Fayaz in connivance with 4-5 associates, took the Neelam by deception.

3. During investigation, complainant Mohd. Iqbal claimed that the cost of the said Neelam was more than Rs. 3 Crores and relied upon testing report dated 12.02.2019 from International Gem Institute Testing Lab Private Ltd., Jaipur, Rajasthan and Gemstone report dated 16.08.1999 from another testing lab at Switzerland. It is further the case of prosecution that CCTV footage of meeting on 22.02.2020 of complainant Mohd. Iqbal with accused Fayaz and other associates was obtained and as per hotel records, Fayaz had checked in the hotel Crown Plaza, Rohini on 22.02.2020 at 2.00 pm and checked out on 23.02.2020 at 11.53 am. Further, Raman Abrol (petitioner in Bail Application No. 2652/2022), Fayaz Ahmad, complainant Mohd. Iqbal and Prashant were seen in the CCTV footage dated 22.02.2020. Also Akhtar Gujjar (petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 4381/2021) was also seen in the hotel. It was further revealed that accused Raman Abrol, Fayaz Ahmad Mir alongwith two other persons namely Akhtar Gujjar and Manjoor Ahmed Vani (Constable) had stayed in Hotel Ivory Place, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. As per records provided by the hotel, Fayaz Ahmad Mir (proclaimed offen