Mustkeem @ Aarif vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for the applicant as well as Mr. BS Parihar, Brief Holder for the State and also perused the record.

In brief the prosecution case is that on 9.5.2010 at 3:15 PM, Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal lodged an FIR stating therein that on that day at 1:35 PM, he came at his house from shop and after 10-15 minutes, four dacoits (three armed with a revolver and one armed with a dagger) forcefully entered inside the house and took the complainant''s son into possession. When the complainant assured that he would cooperate them, then the dacoits returned him his son and after that the dacoits searched the house and looted the jwellery, cash, laptop and mobiles belonging to the complainant and his daughter.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. However on the contrary, learned Brief Holder submitted that the looted case property has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. He further submitted that even the applicant has rightly been identified by the witnesses. He further submitted that the applicant is a habitual criminal for committing the same type of offences. The criminal history of the applicant is as follows: -

FIR No. 36/2010 u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Special Cell, Delhi

FIR No. 162/2010 u/s 379/411 IPC, PS Gandhi Nagar, Delhi

FIR No. 168/2010 u/s 379/411 IPC, PS Gandhi Nagar, Delhi

Case Crime No. 150/2009 u/s 395/397 IPC, PS Chandpur Bijnor

Case Crime No. 276/09 u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Chandpur Bijnor

On a perusal of the criminal history of the applicant, it transpires that the applicant is a habitual criminal, who is involved in committing the same type of offences again and again.

After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned Counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record as well as considering the criminal history of the applicant which reveals that the applicant is a habitual criminal for committing the same type of offences, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail.

Bail application is rejected accordingly. Rejected.