Facts of the Case

The three bail applications arose from the same FIR and were therefore decided by the High Court through a common order.

The applicants, namely Vikas Kumar alias Raja, Sumit alias Sumit Kumar and Titu, were in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 103 of 2022 registered under Sections 392 and 411 IPC read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Raiwala, District Dehradun.

According to the FIR, in the early hours of 21 June 2022 at approximately 1:40 AM, the informant was returning to his house while carrying a substantial amount of cash. Three persons riding a motorcycle allegedly pushed him and snatched ₹1,30,000 from his pocket along with GST papers and other documents.

The prosecution case was that on 25 June 2022, the applicants were arrested, whereupon they allegedly confessed their guilt and some money was recovered from them.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Court were:

  1. Whether sufficient material existed against the applicants to justify their continued detention.
  2. Whether the identification of the applicants by the informant was sufficiently reliable when the alleged occurrence took place around midnight and there was no statement regarding the availability of any source of light at the place of occurrence.
  3. Whether the alleged recovery and surrounding circumstances were sufficient to deny bail to the applicants.
  4. Whether the prosecution assertion that the informant identified the applicants after their interception, coupled with CCTV footage allegedly showing some persons moving on a motorcycle in the nearby locality, justified continued custody.

Applicants’ Arguments

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that there was no evidence against them.

It was specifically argued that there was no evidence suggesting that any source of light was available at the place of occurrence which could have enabled the informant to identify the assailants.

The applicants further contended that nothing specific had been recovered from them.

It was also submitted that the applicants were not previous convicts.

On these grounds, the applicants sought their release on bail.

Respondent’s Arguments

Learned State counsel opposed the bail applications and submitted, on the basis of instructions, that when the applicants were intercepted and they pleaded their guilt, the informant was called to the place and identified them.

The State further submitted that CCTV footage showed some persons moving around on a motorcycle in the nearby locality.

Thus, the prosecution relied upon the alleged identification by the informant, the circumstances surrounding the interception of the applicants and the CCTV footage relating to movement of certain persons on a motorcycle in the nearby area.

Court’s Findings

The High Court examined the circumstances concerning the identification of the alleged assailants.

The Court observed that the informant could have identified the assailants at a subsequent stage only if he had an opportunity to identify them at the time when the assault was committed and the money was snatched.

The Court specifically noted that the incident had occurred around midnight.

Importantly, there was no statement regarding the existence of any source of light at the place of occurrence.

In these circumstances, the Court questioned how the informant could have identified the assailants.

The Court also noted the submission that the applicants had been identified on the basis of the build of the assailants.

Considering these circumstances, particularly the midnight occurrence, absence of a statement regarding any source of light and the nature of the alleged identification, the Court held that the matter made out a case for grant of bail.

Court Order

The High Court held that the case was fit for bail and that the applicants deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, all the bail applications were allowed.

The Court directed that the applicants be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each applicant, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Important Clarification

The significant clarification emerging from the order is that subsequent identification of alleged assailants must be examined in the context of whether the witness had an actual opportunity to identify them at the time of the occurrence.

Where an incident occurs around midnight and the record contains no statement regarding the availability of a source of light, the reliability of subsequent identification may become a material consideration at the bail stage.

In the present case, the Court specifically questioned how the informant could have identified the assailants when there was no statement regarding any source of light. The assertion that identification was based on the build of the assailants was also considered by the Court while concluding that a case for bail was made out.

This order concerns the grant of bail on the facts and circumstances placed before the Court. It does not amount to a final determination of guilt or innocence in the criminal trial.

Sections Involved

·         Section 392 IPC – Punishment for Robbery

·         Section 411 IPC – Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property

·         Section 34 IPC – Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783327450_1156compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.