Mohammad Tariq Alias Sonu vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sushil Kukreja, J

The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail in case FIR No.150/2023 dated 12.07.2023, under Sections 380, 457 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Boileauganj (West), District Shimla, H.P.

Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per the status report filed by the respondent-State, are that the police received a telephonic information on 12.07.2023 at about 7:54 a.m. from one Kedar Nath to the effect that a theft had been committed at his Tour and Travels office, situated near Bawa Market, The Mall Shimla and on reaching the spot, the complainant submitted a written complaint before the police, stating therein that on 11.07.2023, his son Vasu closed the office and they went home at about 8:30 p.m. The currency notes of Rs.6,00,000/- were kept in the drawer which were in the denomination of Rs.500 & Rs.2000 and were kept for disbursing the salary to his drivers. In the morning at around 7:00 a.m., when his elder brother Hari Dutt reached the shop, he telephonically informed him that the locks of the office were broken and then he (complainant) and his son rushed to the office and informed the police about the incident. On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR in question was registered.

The police prepared the spot map, clicked photographs and recorded statements of the witnesses and also obtained CCTV Camera footage. As per CCTV footage, on 12.07.2023 at about 4:10 a.m., a vehicle was found coming from Band Box towards AG Chowk and two persons came down at AG Chowk and went towards Bawa Market, who after some time, rushed back to the vehicle, took something from the vehicle and then again went towards the place of incident. After some time, they came back running towards the vehicle, sat immediately in the vehicle and went towards Band Box side. It was found that the registration number of the aforesaid vehicle was JK-14E-3241 and subsequently on 15.07.2023, the aforesaid vehicle was found parked on the roadside at Batalwari near Roadmill. District Udhampur, J&K, in which, three persons were found sitting, out of them, the person sitting on the driver seat disclosed his name as Karan, the person sitting on the front seat disclosed his name as Rohit and the person sitting on the rear seat disclosed his name as Rakesh. During interrogation, all the aforesaid three accused persons confessed that they committed theft in the office of the complainant during the night of 12.07.2023 and thereafter during the search of the vehicle, a sum of Rs. 3,07,000/- in cash was recovered from the vehicle. The aforesaid accused persons also disclosed that their fourth accomplice was Sonu alias Bafar (petitioner herein) and thereafter a police team alongwith the aforesaid accused persons left for Jammu in search of the petitioner/accused Sonu alias Bafar, but he could not be found anywhere. Thereafter, all the aforesaid accused persons disclosed to the police that the remaining stolen amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was lying with the petitioner and after that the petitioner was arrested on 19.07.2023 on the basis of his mobile location from Parli Mod (Badi Brahmana) Jammu.

The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR is an afterthought to conceal the preconceived intentions and implicating the petitioner under the false charges. He further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2023 and the delay in conclusion of trial infringes upon the right of speedy trial of the petitioner, as such, he is entitled to be released on bail on the ground that his right of speedy trial has been violated.

Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner is involved in the offence of theft and keeping in view the fact that twelve more cases have also been registered against him, he is not entitled to be released on bail. He further contended that the present bail application filed by the petitioner is the successive one, which is liable to be dismissed as there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and also carefully gone through the material available on record.

Pertinently, the present is the successive bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier, he had preferred a bail application being Cr.MP(M) No.2220 of 2023 before this Court, seeking regular bail, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2023, as this Court was of the opinion that the petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail in view of the nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioner and also the fact that he is a habitual offender of committing theft as twelve more cases have already been registered against him at different police stations. Perusal of the status report further reveals that in FIR No.201/2017, dated 27.10.2017, under Section 382, RPC, Police Station Katra, he has been declared as absconder by the learned JMIC, Katra, Jammu. Since the petitioner is a habitual offender, as such, in view of the seriousness of allegations leveled against him, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

It is a well settled principle of law that when the successive application comes before the Court, the Court would be very conscious while considering the same. As held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292, that successive bail application can be entertained by the Court when substantial change is established by the accused, which would entitle him for getting bail in successive bail application. The Court should not pass the order of releasing him on bail in successive bail application merely establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two applications. There should be drastic change during the period between two applications, which would entitle the accused for bail.

This Court, confronted Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, to point out the change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier bail application. The only argument which the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced is that the petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2023 and the trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future. However, keeping in view the seriousness of offence, merely because there is a delay in trial, is not a ground for grant of bail. The charge-sheet has already been filed before the learned ACJM-II, Shimla, therefore, the learned trial Court can always be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in a time bound manner. Hence, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner has failed to point out any change in circumstances which would entitle him for getting bail in the instant application.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that after the dismissal of the regular bail application, there is no change in the circumstances which would entitle the petitioner to file the present application. Therefore, in absence of any changed circumstances, the present successive application for bail cannot be entertained. The application is hereby dismissed.

Be it stated that any expression of opinion given in this order does not mean an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made therein.

Before parting with this order and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2023, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on or before 31st December, 2024.