Court refuses bail to youths accused of pickpocketing

A court here has refused to grant bail to two youths accused of pick pocketing a passenger in a DTC bus, observing that such offences are being committed "boldly" by criminals in the national capital.
"It is a matter of common knowledge that the incidents of robbery are taking place regularly in Delhi. The unscrupulous persons involved in commission of such offences commit such offence boldly and thereafter, succeed in running away," Additional Sessions Judge Raj Kumar Tripathi said.
The court observed that both the accused, Ansar Ali and Mohd Sharif, who had robbed the cell phone of the passenger, are reported to be habitual offenders and have been found involved in committing similar type of offences.

"Accused Sharif is reported to be previously involved in a case registered against him at police station Malviya Nagar, particulars of which are yet to be verified. Accused Ansar Ali has been found involved in four criminal cases," it said.
The court rejected the contention of the accused that the main accused Yogesh Chadha, at whose instance the cell phone was recovered, has already been granted bail and therefore, on the ground of parity, they be also enlarged on bail.
"The accused (Chadha) who was granted bail by this court was not found having any past criminal record," it said.

The court while dismissing the bail pleas said, "Taking the facts into account and the severity of offence alleged to be committed by both the accused and their past criminal record, no ground for grant of bail is made out."

According to the prosecution, on March 3, 2015, when the complainant Niraj was coming home in a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus near Kotla Mubarak Pur police station, three persons after pushing him pick pocketed his mobile phone.
The accused also allegedly threatened to kill Niraj in case he protested and thereafter deboarded the bus, it said.
However, the complainant followed them and made a PCR call after which the accused were arrested and a case was lodged under section 392 (robbery) read with 34 (common intention) of IPC, it said.