Facts of the Case

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.

Since all three bail applications arose from the same FIR, the High Court decided them by a common order.

According to the FIR, in the early hours of 21.06.2022 at about 01:40 AM, the informant was returning to his house carrying a large amount of cash. Three motorcycle-borne persons allegedly pushed him and snatched ₹1,30,000 from his pocket, along with GST papers and other documents.

The prosecution alleged that on 25.06.2022, the applicants were arrested, whereupon they allegedly confessed their guilt and some money was recovered from them.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the High Court were:

  1. Whether the applicants were entitled to bail in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 read with Section 34 IPC.
  2. Whether the alleged identification of the applicants by the informant was sufficiently reliable when the incident occurred at about 01:40 AM and there was no statement regarding the availability of any source of light at the place of occurrence.
  3. Whether the prosecution material concerning alleged confession, recovery of some money and CCTV footage was sufficient to justify continued judicial custody at the bail stage.
  4. Whether identification allegedly based on the build of the assailants, in the circumstances of a midnight occurrence, created a sufficient ground for grant of bail.

Applicants’ / Petitioners’ Arguments

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that:

  • There was no evidence against the applicants.
  • 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 alleged incident had occurred during the night, and therefore the reliability of identification was doubtful in the absence of evidence regarding visibility.
  • Nothing specific had been recovered from the applicants.
  • The applicants were not previous convicts.

On these grounds, it was argued that the applicants deserved to be released on bail.

Respondent’s / State’s Arguments

Learned State counsel opposed the bail applications and submitted that:

  • As per instructions, when the applicants were intercepted and allegedly pleaded their guilt, the informant was called to the place.
  • The informant thereafter identified the applicants.
  • In the CCTV footage, some persons were allegedly spotted moving around on a motorcycle in the nearby locality.

The State relied upon these circumstances in support of the prosecution case against the applicants.

Court’s Order / Findings

The High Court closely examined the circumstances concerning the alleged identification of the 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 took place and the money was snatched.

The Court specifically noted that:

  • The occurrence was an incident of midnight.
  • There was no statement with regard to any source of light.
  • In such circumstances, a serious question arose as to how the informant could identify the assailants.
  • The Court was informed that the applicants had been identified based on the build of the assailants.

Considering these circumstances, the High Court held that the matter made out a case for bail.

The Court concluded that it was a fit case 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, at the bail stage, the reliability of identification may become a material consideration where:

  • the alleged offence occurred at midnight;
  • the record contains no statement regarding the source of light;
  • there is a genuine question as to whether the informant had a proper opportunity to see and identify the assailants; and
  • identification is stated to have been made based on the build of the assailants.

The High Court did not finally determine the guilt or innocence of the applicants. The order was confined to deciding whether the circumstances made out a case for grant of bail. On the facts before it, the Court found the doubtful circumstances surrounding identification sufficient to hold that the applicants deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Sections Involved

  • Section 392, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Punishment for robbery
  • Section 411, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Dishonestly receiving stolen property
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783329541_1159compressed.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.