Mumbai, July 6, 2022 – Yusufbhai Ahemadbhai Patel, accused of theft and receiving stolen property, has been granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge C.V. Patil. The court cited the prior grant of bail to co-accused and the filing of the chargesheet as primary reasons for granting bail.

Patel was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 157/2022 registered at Bangur Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. He was charged under Sections 379 (theft), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender), 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), and 413 (habitually dealing in stolen property) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that Patel was involved in the offenses of theft and receiving stolen property.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate Ajay Dubey, representing Patel, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the offenses. He requested that Patel be granted bail.

Prosecution’s Stance:

APP Shankar Erande, representing the State, opposed the bail application. They argued that if Patel was released, he would tamper with evidence and abscond. They also raised concerns about Patel being a resident of Gujarat, which they claimed would make it difficult to secure his presence.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Patil noted the following key points:

• Prior Bail Granted to Co-Accused: Three co-accused had already been arrested and granted bail in 2020.
• Filing of Chargesheet: The chargesheet had been filed against the co-accused.
• Magistrate Triable Offense: The offense under Section 413 is triable by a Sessions Court.
• Dismissal of Absconding Concern: The court dismissed the prosecution’s concern about Patel absconding due to his residence in Gujarat, stating that it was not a sufficient reason to reject bail.
• Conditions to Prevent Evidence Tampering: The court stated that the prosecution’s concerns about evidence tampering could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

“Already co­accused are released on bail. The ground of objection can be secured by imposing conditions. The objection that he is Resident of Gujrat is not sufficient to reject the bail of the accused. Therefore, considering filing of chargesheet, release of co­accused on bail, I proceed to pass following order,” Judge Patil stated in her order.

Conditions of Bail:

Patel was granted bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.

Implications:

This decision highlights the court’s emphasis on consistency in bail decisions, particularly when co-accused have already been granted bail. The court’s consideration of the filing of the chargesheet indicates its recognition of the completion of the initial investigation. The dismissal of the absconding concern based solely on the accused’s residence in another state reflects a balanced approach to bail decisions. The inclusion of a condition against evidence tampering ensures that the integrity of the trial process is maintained.