Mohd. Wasi @ Nadim vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 3484 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      BAIL APPN. No. 1757/2011

                                        Date of Decision : 24.05.2012

MOHD. WASI @ NADIM                           ..... Petitioner
                             Through:   Mr. Harihar Guin, Adv.

                        versus
STATE                        ..... Respondent
                             Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. This is an application for the grant of regular bail to the

accused, Mohd. [email protected] Nadim in FIR No.11/2009 under

Sections 3 (1) (II) and 3 (2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control

of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short MCOCA) registered by

PS:Lahori Gate, Delhi.

2. It may be pertinent to mention here that the charges against

the petitioner for the aforesaid offences have been framed by

a detailed order dated 12.3.2012 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the case is

pending trial.

3. Briefly stated, the allegations against the present petitioners

are that a proposal was moved by the SHO, PS:Lahori Gate,

Delhi for registration of an FIR under MCOCA against one

Mohd. Wasi, s/o Mohd. Sham, r/o 2510, Chhota Chaman

Wara, Phatak Habas Khan, Tilak Bazar, Delhi and one Mohd.

Shadab, the brother of Mohd. Wasi, living at the same

address. The contents of the proposal were that Mohd.

Shadab was a notorious burglar involved in as many as 24

cases of burglary, theft, hurt, Arms Act, NDPS Act and

robbery and he is facing trial for all these heinous crimes. So

far as Mohd. Wasi is concerned, he is the brother of Mohd.

Shadab. They were allegedly running an Organised Crime

Syndicate collectively along with other persons and were

indulging in organized crimes singly or jointly by use of

violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion and

unlawful means with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits

and or gaining undue economic as well as other advantage for

himself. They were also promoting insurgency. On the basis of

the aforesaid proposal, which was approved, an FIR under

MCOCA was registered. So far as the present petitioner is

concerned, he is stated to be involved in more than 29 cases,

the details of which are given at page 9 of the status Report

filed by the State.

4. The learned counsel has vehemently prayed for the grant of

bail to the petitioner on the ground that most of the cases

against the petitioner, Mohd. Wasi are for the offences of theft

and burglary, which cannot be said to be constituting any

threat to the peace and tranquility in the locality and,

therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the grant

of bail. It was the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid

alleged activities of the petitioners were not causing any

undue disturbance, even if it is assumed to be correct, to the

public at large. It has been stated since the petitioner has not

been in custody for more than two years and he is married

and having a family, comprising of his wife and the two minor

children and two minor brothers and sister-in-law, therefore,

the petitioner be enlarged on bail. It has been further stated

that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he will

flee away from the processes of law.

5. The application for the grant of bail has been opposed by the

learned APP.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner seems to

be a hardcore criminal, who, as on date, is facing the trial or

stands convicted in respect of more than 27 cases. This

clearly establishes that so far as the petitioner is concerned,

he has the proclivity of committing offences. Therefore, even

though it may be accepted that some of the offences, which

are registered against the petitioners are the offences of theft

or burglary, which, on the face of it, may not destroy the

peace and tranquility of the locality, where the FIR has been

registered, but nevertheless there are equally serious offences

of threatening the persons (506 IPC), being in possession of

illegal arms (Section 25 of the Arms Act) as well as the other

offences under the IPC and the NDPS. Therefore, one can very

safely say that the petitioner is not confining his field of

operation to one particular definite kind of offence, he seems

to be doing all illegal things and merely because some of the

activities by him may not apparently be disturbing the peace

and tranquility of the locality, but, nevertheless, the same are

illegal and have a tendency to create a panic in the area

where frequent burglaries and thefts etc. are taking place.

Therefore, I do tend to agree with the submission made by

the learned counsel that the petitioner does not deserves to

be enlarged on interim or regular bail only on account of the

fact that some of the offences against him are registered for

theft and burglary. On the contrary, the petitioner along with

his co-accused, Shadab, who happens to be his brother seems

to be an active member of the unorganized crime syndicate,

who is indulging in different crimes from time to time and any

order directing his release during the pendency of the trial for

offences under MCOCA is not only going to jeopardize and

threaten the holding of a fair trial as the petitioner may

threaten the witnesses, but also the fact that he may flee

away from the processes of law or go underground. Such a

situation cannot be countenanced. I, therefore, feel that this

is not a fit case where the petitioner deserves to be enlarged

on bail.

8. Accordingly, the application for the grant of bail is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J MAY 24, 2012 tp