AASIFBHAI HAJIABDUL BHAYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Dipak Sindhi appearing for the applicants submitted that the present applications have been filed against the accused in the complaint being C.R. No. I - 2 of 2017 registered with Salaya Marine Police Station, District : Devbhumi-Dwarka under Ss. 457 , 380 and 34 of IPC and other offences. He submitted that all the accused were identified in the CCTV footage. Recovery has been made from each of the accused and the complaint is of theft of Rs.35.85 Lacs consisting of gold / silver ornaments and cash of Rs.6.50 Lacs. Subsequently, offence under Sec. 411 of IPC came to be added. He submitted that the accused are members of a gang that has created havoc in the society and they are basically targeting residential houses. The women in the houses are also not safe. He submitted that cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent-accused has been prayed on the ground that all the respondent-accused are habitual offenders and that they have several criminal antecedents ranging between 4 to 17. Even after they were released on bail in connection with the impugned FIR, the respondent-accused have continued with their illegal activities. It is further stated that after being enlarged on regular, the respondent-accused have not attended the trial proceedings on regular basis and they attending the proceedings only on 24/11/2021 when the charge came to be framed. The matter is now posted on 19/5/2022 for recording of evidence of witness/s. It is submitted that the trial Court has granted bail to the respondents on irrelevant considerations ignoring the prima facie evidence. He stated that different associations, viz. Salaya Machimar Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Salaya Grain and Kirana Retail Association, Faize Al Garib Nawaz, Salaya Bhadela Muslim Jamat, Subhaniya Sunni Muslim Jamat and Salaya Sailing Vessels Owner's Association, have made representations on 10/4/2017 before the police against the gang of the respondents. He, therefore, prayed to cancel the bail granted to the respondent-accused.

(2.) As per the observations made by the trial Court, the respondent-accused were wearing masks and they were captured in the CCTV footage. They have been arraigned on the basis of statement of co-accused and they were enlarged on bail even on the ground that recovery has been made made from them.

(3.) The correctness of an order granting bail is decided on the anvil whether there is an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion in the order granting bail. The order granting bail need not enter into detailed explanation of the facts of the case but requires reasoning regarding the application of mind. There are allegations of criminal antecedents against the respondent-accused but it is generally observed that those who are involved in offences of loot / theft are arraigned in subsequent cases on the basis of statement of co-accused, which is not admissible.