Bombay High Court
JUNAID NOOR ALI SAYYED @ PAPAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail was denied as the court found a strong prima facie case and deemed the applicant a risk to public safety.
Summary
The applicant, Junaid Noor Ali Sayyed, sought bail in a criminal case (CR No.613 of 2024) for alleged robbery and offences under the Indian Railways Act. The prosecution alleged that the applicant snatched a mobile phone from a victim on a local train, causing the victim to jump and sustain grievous injury, and that CCTV footage and the recovery of the phone from the applicant established his identity. The defence argued that the CCTV was insufficient to identify the applicant and that no witness positively identified him. The court examined the evidence, found a strong prima facie case based on the CCTV analysis and phone recovery, and noted the seriousness of the offence and potential danger to the public. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court emphasizing that its observations pertained only to bail and not the trial merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the existence of a prima facie case and the seriousness of the alleged robbery.
- Whether the CCTV footage and recovery of the mobile phone constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 392, 75
- Railways Act, 1989 — s. 150(1)(e), 153
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- IPC
- Indian Railways Act
- CCTV evidence
- prima facie case
- public safety
Judgment
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN H.C.SHIV 917.BA1218.26.DOC
SHIV
Digitally signed by
HEMANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CHANDERSEN SHIV CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date: 2026.08.24
15:02:10 +0300
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1218 OF 2026
Junaid Noor Ali Sayyed @ Papa …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Dharmendra D. Jadhav with Harishchandra Thombare for the
Applicant.
Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent-State.
Smt. Kiran Katkar, Pahiravi, Dadar Railway police station present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 20th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. At the outset, Mr.Kulkarni, learned APP tendered a report.
It is taken on record.
2. Present Application seeks release of the Applicant on bail in
connection with C.R. No.613 of 2024, registered with Dadar
Railway Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under
Sections 392 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and
under Sections 150(1)(e) and 153 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
4. Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted
that as stated in the report, when the offender snatched the mobile
phone of the informant’s son, the face of offender was covered
with multi-coloured cloth. No witness has claimed that the
Applicant was the same offender. The CCTV footage is not
sufficient to establish the identity of the Applicant. Therefore, he
asserted that the Applicant is innocent and urged to grant bail.
Page 1 of 3
H.C.SHIV 917.BA1218.26.DOC
5. Mr. Kulkarni, learned APP submitted that there is sufficient
material on record and having regard to his antecedents, the bail
may be refused.
6. I have considered the rival submission. The material on
record show that at the relevant time, victim, son of the informant,
was travelling by a local train, proceeding towards C.S.T. Station.
When the train was moving from Platform No.2 of Currey Road
Station, as alleged, the Applicant snatched the mobile phone of the
victim and jumped out of the train. In an attempt to catch the
Applicant, victim also jumped out of the train, but, he fell on the
platform and sustained grievous injury to his head. The Applicant,
however, fled from the spot. On the basis of the CCTV footage, the
Applicant came to be arrested within two hours of the incident.
The material on record show that the Investigation Officer
has carefully examined the CCTV footage and, concluded that the
Applicant is the same person who had snatched the mobile phone
of victim and immediately, fled from the spot. The recovery of the
mobile phone from the Applicant on the following day of his arrest
lends corroboration to the version of the victim and the CCTV
footage. Thus, there is a strong prima facie case against the
Applicant of the alleged offence.
It is common experience that, the manner in which this
offence of robbery has been committed, always endangers the life
of the victims and often results into grievous injuries or death.
Therefore, the offence committed by the Applicant is serious in
nature. In such circumstances, releasing the Applicant on bail
would be unsafe to general public, as he likely to repeat the
offence. Therefore, the Applicant is not entitled for bail.
7. As a result, the Bail Application is rejected.
Page 2 of 3
H.C.SHIV 917.BA1218.26.DOC
8. It is clarified that any observations made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application
and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be
taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…