Meer Aslam Ali Hashmi Meer Faiz Ali Hashmi vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Held

The Court held that the explanation provided by the informant for the delay in lodging the FIR, which involved attempts to recover the gold and assurances from co-accused, was sufficient and did not warrant discarding the informant's contention at this stage. Regarding the applicant's claim of false implication due to a financial dispute, the Court found no material evidence presented by the applicant to substantiate this claim. The Court noted that, prima facie, there was evidence indicating the gold was purchased by the informant and taken away on 01.04.2024 by the applicant and co-accused. The alleged mistake in the FIR regarding the location was not considered serious enough to discard the informant's case. The Court emphasized that the gold had not been recovered, making custodial interrogation of the person alleged to have taken it necessary. Given the absence of a motive for false implication and the significant amount of gold (worth Rs. 34,90,000/-) involved, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Meer Aslam Ali Hashmi, apprehends arrest in connection with a crime registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first informant alleged that on 01.04.2024, he purchased gold worth Rs. 17,45,000/- from Ganraj Jewellers and further gold worth Rs. 24,90,000/- from Devpriya Jewellers. Subsequently, the gold was allegedly handed over to two individuals in a car at the Zilla Parishad ground by co-accused Syed Anwar and Ishrat Begum. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged about a month after the incident, with an initial complaint on 04.04.2024, which reportedly stated the gold was taken from the informant's house, not the Zilla Parishad ground. The applicant claims the FIR was lodged due to a dispute over repayment of money and that the subsequent production of GST receipts casts doubt on the prosecution's case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and the alleged discrepancy regarding the location where the gold was taken (informant's house vs. Zilla Parishad ground) warrant the grant of anticipatory bail, considering the applicant's contention of false implication due to a financial dispute? (Question of mixed law and fact). 2. Whether the alleged production of GST receipts after the incident creates sufficient doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution's allegations to justify anticipatory bail? (Question of mixed law and fact). Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant argued that the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the contradiction in the location of the alleged incident constitute serious discrepancies. He further contended that the belated production of GST receipts raises doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The applicant claimed he is being falsely implicated due to a dispute with the informant concerning the repayment of money from a prior transaction. Revenue/State: The State opposed the application, relying on the evidence collected during the investigation, including statements from the jewellers confirming the sale of gold. The State argued that the applicant failed to provide any evidence to support his claim of false implication and that the informant's explanation for the delay was sufficient. The State emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation for the recovery of the gold.