Afsar Ali Dangwali v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 18 Aug 2017 · 2017:DHC:8463
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
Bail Appln. 843/2017
2017:DHC:8463
criminal appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s second bail application in a serious robbery case, emphasizing his habitual offender status and reliable identification by the complainant.

Full Text
Translation output
$3 2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI ± BAIL APPLN. 843/2017
AFSAR ALl DANGWALI Petitioner
Through: Mr. AnLIIa Singh. Mr. Pranav Sarthi and Mr. S.is1i Sharma. Advocates.
'irsus STATE OF NCT OF [)ELEiI . . . .Respondent
Through: Mr. Muks!,, Kurnar. APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUST ICF SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
18.68.2017
ORDER

1. This is the second bail application i*d under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the ptitioner for seekinz regular hail in case FIR NO. 1037/2014, under Sections 392/397.': he IPC along with Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act iesterec 'olice Station-. Vivek Vihar, Delhi. The pelitior is:;tated to he ir cu;tody since 18.02.2015.

2. JVIr. Anuraa Singh, learned counsel fir the petit!oner submitted that the applicant is an innocent boy agei about 18 years and has been falsely implicated in the rreent casc. He added that the first bail application was dismissed by this Lourt on 1 7.09.2015. and the present bail application is 1)eing nL)vcd on the basis of changed circumstances. Learned councel furtcu contended that out of total six cases registered against the piiti'nec. he stands acquitted in two, granted bail in hrce and the rreent matter is at the stage of BAIL API'LN. 843/2017 2017:DHC:8463 cross examination of the witnesses. He further contended that the petitioner is entitled for grant of regular (bail) for reasons of parity as the other co-accused Nadeem stands discharged on 11.03.15. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar. learned APP appearing for the state strongly opposed the present bail application and contended that the petitioner is a habitual offender and involved in nine cases. He further contended that the petitioner was correctly identified by the complainant during TIP (Test Identification Parade) proceedings conducted in Tihar Jail as well as in the court on 28.01.2016 and referred to the statement of the complainant dated 28.01.2016. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. As per the Status Report specific allegation against the accused/petitioner is made that he along with two co- accused persons committed the robbery of car of the complainant along with his diamond ring, mobile phone. 1-pad, ATM Cards, Credit Cards and other documents at gun point. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature, and punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years and more. The applicant is a habitual offender and a man of past criminal antecedents as he has been involved in several similar cases, of grave and heinous nature. There is every possibility of the petitioner to indulge in more crime. Furthermore, it is also evident that the applicant is a habitual offender and a man of past criminal ci BAIL APPLN. 843/2017 antecedents as he has been involved in several similar cases, of grave and heinous nature. As far as contention in relation to grant of parity is concerned it is relevant to peruse the statrnent of PW- 4 / Dr. Prabhat Luthra who deposed as tinder "At this stage the witness has identifld the person whose name is known as lkiilaq, who pointed the pistol on the head on of the witness and other accused whose name is known as Afsar A/i is the person who was with Jkhlaq and sat on the seat near Driver seat of his above said Car. Earlier. I went to Tihar Jail to participate in TiP proceedings and I iden4fied thcse accused persons in TIP also. From the perusal of the record as well as statement referred above, it is explicitly clear that the appellant was correctly identified by the complainant twice. Hence, the petitioner cannot draw his case in comparison to other discharged accused Nadeem. Moreover, perusal of the status report as well as report of SCRB (State Crime Record Bureau), it is amply clear that nine cases have been registered against the petitioner and not six. Taking the aroresaid facts and circumstances of the present case into consideration and in the interests of lustice, no grounds for granting bail to the petitioner are made out. Accordingly, the present application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. BAIL APPLN. 843/2017 Page 3 ol'4 Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

SANGINRA SEHGAL, J AUGUST 18. 2017 / gr//