Wasi @ Nadim (Mohd.) vs State

V.K. Shali, J.—This is an application for the grant of regular bail to the accused, Mohd. Wasi @ Nadim in FIR No. 11/2009 under Sections 3(1) (II) and 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short MCOCA) registered by PS : Lahori Gate, Delhi. It may be pertinent to mention here that the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences have been framed by a detailed order dated 12.3.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the case is pending trial.

Briefly stated, the allegations against the present petitioners are that a proposal was moved by the SHO, PS : Lahori Gate, Delhi for registration of an FIR under MCOCA against one Mohd. Wasi, s/o Mohd. Sham, r/o 2510, Chhota Chaman Wara, Phatak Habas Khan, Tilak Bazar, Delhi and one Mohd. Shadab, the brother of Mohd. Wasi, living at the same address. The contents of the proposal were that Mohd. Shadab was a notorious burglar involved in as many as 24 cases of burglary, theft, hurt, Arms Act, NDPS Act and robbery and he is facing trial for all these heinous crimes. So far as Mohd. Wasi is concerned, he is the brother of Mohd. Shadab. They were allegedly running an Organised Crime Syndicate collectively along with other persons and were indulging in organized crimes singly or jointly by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion and unlawful means with the object of gaining pecuniary benefits and or gaining undue economic as well as other advantage for himself. They were also promoting insurgency. On the basis of the aforesaid proposal, which was approved, an FIR under MCOCA was registered. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he is stated to be involved in more than 29 cases, the details of which are given at page 9 of the status Report filed by the State.

The learned counsel has vehemently prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that most of the cases against the petitioner, Mohd. Wasi are for the offences of theft and burglary, which cannot be said to be constituting any threat to the peace and tranquility in the locality and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the grant of bail. It was the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid alleged activities of the petitioners were not causing any undue disturbance, even if it is assumed to be correct, to the public at large. It has been stated since the petitioner has not been in custody for more than two years and he is married and having a family, comprising of his wife and the two minor children and two minor brothers and sister-in-law, therefore, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. It has been further stated that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he will flee away from the processes of law.

The application for the grant of bail has been opposed by the learned APP.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner seems to be a hardcore criminal, who, as on date, is facing the trial or stands convicted in respect of more than 27 cases. This clearly establishes that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has the proclivity of committing offences. Therefore, even though it may be accepted that some of the offences, which are registered against the petitioners are the offences of theft or burglary, which, on the face of it, may not destroy the peace and tranquility of the locality, where the FIR has been registered, but nevertheless there are equally serious offences of threatening the persons (506 IPC), being in possession of illegal arms (Section 25 of the Arms Act) as well as the other offences under the IPC and the NDPS. Therefore, one can very safely say that the petitioner is not confining his field of operation to one particular definite kind of offence, he seems to be doing all illegal things and merely because some of the activities by him may not apparently be disturbing the peace and tranquility of the locality, but, nevertheless, the same are illegal and have a tendency to create a panic in the area where frequent burglaries and thefts etc. are taking place. Therefore, I do tend to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel that the petitioner does not deserves to be enlarged on interim or regular bail only on account of the fact that some of the offences against him are registered for theft and burglary. On the contrary, the petitioner along with his co-accused, Shadab, who happens to be his brother seems to be an active member of the unorganized grime syndicate, who is indulging in different crimes from time to time and any order directing his release during the pendency of the trial for offences under MCOCA is not only going to jeopardize and threaten the holding of a fair trial as the petitioner may threaten the witnesses, but also the fact that he may flee away from the processes of law or go underground. Such a situation cannot be countenanced. I, therefore, feel that this is not a fit case where the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the application for the grant of bail is dismissed.