Mumbai Court Denies Bail to Deepak C. Ashtekar Accused in ₹50 Lakh Robbery Case, Citing Ongoing Investigation

Mumbai, April 4, 2024 – Deepak C. Ashtekar, accused in a ₹50 lakh robbery case, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge A.A. Kulkarni rejected Ashtekar’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 410 of 2024), citing the ongoing investigation and the potential for witness tampering.

Ashtekar was arrested in connection with Crime No. 40/2024, registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 395 (dacoity), 392 (robbery), 170 (personating a public servant), 120(b) (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that on January 16, 2024, at approximately 11:00 AM, the complainant, Pankaj Singh, was traveling in a car with his driver, Vinod More, and office employee, Dhiraj Wadhwan, carrying ₹1,50,000 in cash. Ashtekar, impersonating a CBI officer, allegedly took bags from the car and instructed them to come to the CBI office. Upon reaching the CBI office at BKC, the complainant realized that he had been deceived.

The investigation revealed that the total amount involved was over ₹50 lakh, with ₹30,54,000 and a mobile phone yet to be recovered. The prosecution also stated that co-accused Vijay Rasal was still at large.

Defense Arguments:

Ashtekar’s advocate, Vikas Joshi, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He contended that the alleged offenses did not fall under section 392 of the IPC and that there were discrepancies in the description of the culprit provided by the complainant. He emphasized that Ashtekar was a permanent resident of Mumbai, had been in judicial custody since January 20, 2024, had no prior criminal record, and was willing to abide by any bail conditions.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), J.N. Suryawanshi, and the Investigating Officer (IO) opposed the bail, stating that the investigation was in its preliminary stages. They highlighted the significant amount of money still unrecovered and the absconding co-accused. They also mentioned that Ashtekar had been identified in a test identification parade and that some amount had been recovered at his instance. They expressed concerns that Ashtekar would abscond if released.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Kulkarni, after reviewing the FIR and the submissions, noted that the incident involved impersonation and the theft of a significant amount of money. He acknowledged that some amount had been recovered at Ashtekar’s instance, indicating his prima facie involvement.

The court emphasized that the investigation was ongoing, with a substantial amount still unrecovered and a co-accused at large. It expressed concerns that releasing Ashtekar at this stage could lead to tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

Therefore, the court concluded that Ashtekar’s bail application could not be considered until the conclusion of the evidence.

Key Points from the Court’s Reasoning:

• Ongoing Investigation: The court highlighted the preliminary stage of the investigation and the need for further evidence gathering.
• Unrecovered Amount: The substantial amount of money still unrecovered was a significant factor in denying bail.
• Absconding Co-accused: The fact that a co-accused was still at large indicated the need for continued investigation.
• Potential for Tampering: The court expressed concerns about potential tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.
• Prima facie Involvement: The recovery of some amount at the instance of the accused indicated his prima facie involvement in the crime.

Conclusion:

The court rejected Ashtekar’s bail application, emphasizing the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and ensure the safety of witnesses.