H.C.SHIV 917.BA1218.26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 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 HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2026.08.24 15:02:10 +0300 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.)