Delhi High Court
Mohd. Farid Ui [email protected] vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 15 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 15, 2015
+ BAIL APPLN. 2597/2014
MOHD FARID UI ISLAM @ FARID ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Agrawal, Advocate
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sumit PS Special Cell
+ BAIL APPLN. 2598/2014
MOHD FARID UI ISLAM @ FARID ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Agrawal, Advocate
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
Sumit PS Special Cell
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
With the consent of both the sides, the above-captioned two
applications are heard together as the ground to seek bail in these two
applications is common and by this common judgment, these two
applications are being disposed of.
Bail Appln Nos.2597 & 2598/2014 Page 1
Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.27/2013 under Section 489B,
489C of IPC and in FIR No.32/2013 under Section 489B, 489C and 120-
B of IPC. In the aforesaid two FIRs, co-accused of petitioner were found
in possession of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICNs) of `8 lakhs odd and
they had disclosed that these FICNs had to be delivered to petitioner,
whereas in the above-said second FIR, petitioner was found in possession
of FICNs worth `2 lakhs. The first incident is of 19th June, 2013 whereas
the second incident is of 1st September, 2013.
In the above-captioned two applications, petitioner seeks bail on
the ground that he is in custody since 1 st September, 2013 and the co-
accused of petitioner are on bail and the matter is pending for trial.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that trial of these cases is likely to
take some time and petitioner is not involved in any other case except
these two FIRs and so, petitioner deserves bail.
These two applications are strongly opposed by learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, who has submitted that petitioner
is a member of syndicate involved in illicit trading of FICNs and the two
co-accused of petitioner have been granted bail because they were not
involved in circulation and distribution of FICNs. It was pointed out that
petitioner had roots in Malda in West Bengal and is actively involved in
trade of FICNs and so, petitioner does not deserve bail.
Upon hearing and on perusal of FIRs of these cases, status report
filed and material on record, I find that ground to grant bail to co-accused
Dinesh Gorsava @ Dinesh by trial court vide order of 1st April, 2014 is
not justified as the observation made in the said order of co-accused
Dinesh Gorsava @ Dinesh being not involved in circulation and
Bail Appln Nos.2597 & 2598/2014 Page 2
distribution of FICNs is not borne out from the record. However,
respondent-State has not come forward to seek cancellation of bail of
Dinesh, but it would not be a ground to treat petitioner at par with co-
accused. So far as co-accused-Shahjahan is concerned, it was brought to
the notice of this Court during the course of hearing that co-accused-
Shahjahan is absconding and steps to get him declared Proclaimed
Offender are being taken.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of petitioner is not
at par with the case of co-accused, who have already been granted bail.
The allegations against petitioner are of procuring FICNs, which has a
debilitating effect on the economy of the Country.
The parameters governing grant of bail in such serious offences, as
reiterated by Apex Court in Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI (2012)
4 SCC 134 are as under:-
"The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in
a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.
Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of
the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail was being granted, particularly,
where the accused is charged of having committed a
serious offence. The court granting bail has to consider,
among other circumstances, the factors such as (a) the
nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case
of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b)
reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness
or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (c)
prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge. In addition to the same, the court while
Bail Appln Nos.2597 & 2598/2014 Page 3
considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable
offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence,
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and
tampering with the prosecution witnesses, have to be
noted."
In view of gravity of offence purportedly committed by petitioner,
he is not entitled to bail in these two FIR cases.
Consequentially these two applications are dismissed while not
commenting upon the merits of these cases. Since petitioner is in custody
for about 1 ½ year, therefore trial court shall make all endeavours to
expedite trial of these two FIR cases.
Copy of this order be sent to trial court forthwith.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 15, 2015
vn
Bail Appln Nos.2597 & 2598/2014 Page 4
