The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd Tauseef vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi consisting of Justice Amit Mahajan while dealing with a bail application, reiterated that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardised, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti-collective act.
Facts and Procedural History:
This petition was filed for grant of pre-arrest bail in an FIR u/s 397/394 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Old Rajinder Nagar.
The FIR was registered after Nitin Dhawan called PCR to report the theft of jewellery and cash by four armed persons. During the inquiry, the robbery car was recognized from CCTV footage. The car was stolen in Ghaziabad, UP. Mohammad Mustakeen and Mendi Hasan were detained and their vehicle was retrieved. Another co-accused, Mohd. Kashif alias Badshah was arrested on secret information. In his disclosure statement, the co-defendant revealed that the robbed property was given to the present applicant.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that the applicant was falsely implicated in this case. Moreover, apart from the disclosure made by the co-accused, there was no other evidence against the applicant.
Respondent: It was contended that the applicant was the receiver of the robbed property, which was still to be recovered. The applicant is missing, and Section 82 proceedings have been initiated. The applicant had a criminal background and had committed a similar robbery.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench emphasized that the Supreme Court has often decided that Section 438 of the CrPC is an unusual power that shouldn't be used frequently. It has been held that custodial interrogation should be avoided when the accused has joined the investigation, fully participated, and is not likely to abscond.
It further noted that the allegations, in this case, were serious in nature:
“He is stated to be in possession of the robbed articles which are yet to be recovered. The applicant had been absconding and, initially, non-bailable warrants were issued and, thereafter, proceeding u/s 82 of the CrPC have been initiated. The applicant also has a case history and is found to be involved in another case… u/s 392/34 of IPC.”
It relied on Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh and noted that no element in society can act in a way that jeopardizes the life or liberty of others, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti-collective act.
The decision of the Court:
Keeping in mind the nature of the allegations; the antecedents of the applicant; the fact that the applicant had not joined and cooperated with the investigation and that the investigation was at a nascent stage, Court felt that the custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary. The application was, therefore, dismissed. It was, however, made clear that any observations made in this order were only for deciding this application and should not influence the outcome of the trial.
Case: Mohd Tauseef vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Coram: Justice Amit Mahajan
Case No: Bail Application No. 3698/2022 & Crl. M. (Bail) 1511/2022, decided on 30th December 2022
Advocates for Petitioner: Mohd. Rais Farooqui, Mohd. Ahmed Shamsher, Mohd. Imran Malik, Mr. Laique S. Farooqui, Mr. Khalid Azeez, Mr. Asad Beig & Mr. Aditya Mishra.
Advocates for Respondent: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for the State with Insp. Dharmendra Sharma, PS Rajinder Nagar.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
