Mumbai, February 9, 2024 – In a significant ruling, the City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of two accused, Arman Shoukin Khan and Ravi Munnalal Jolaniya, in connection with a theft case amounting to Rs. 55.44 lakh. The accused, booked under Sections 427, 454, 380, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but their plea was turned down by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar (C.R. No. 37) on February 5, 2024.

Background of the Case

According to the prosecution, the theft occurred on February 23, 2023, between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM at New Nandadeep Building, Sion, Mumbai. The complainant alleged that unknown individuals forcibly entered the residence of his sister-in-law’s husband using an iron tool and stole Rs. 7,50,000 in cash from a wooden cupboard. Subsequent investigation revealed that the total value of stolen cash and jewelry amounted to Rs. 55.44 lakh.

Police retrieved CCTV footage, which identified two individuals breaking into the house. It was later discovered that the suspects were already in custody under the jurisdiction of Mira Road-Bhayandar Commissionerate, Crime Branch Unit 2, for another offense. The accused were subsequently transferred to the custody of Sion Police Station and charged in the present case.

Arguments by the Defense

The defense, represented by Advocate Krishna Chaudhary, argued that the accused were falsely implicated and had no involvement in the crime. It was contended that no recovery was made from them, and since the investigation was complete with the charge sheet already filed, their continued detention was unnecessary. Furthermore, the defense pointed out that only six out of the twenty prosecution witnesses had been examined, leading to an undue delay in trial proceedings.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The prosecution, represented by APP Abhijeet Gondwal, strongly opposed the bail application, highlighting the serious nature of the crime and the significant financial loss involved. It was argued that the accused were habitual offenders with previous criminal records, making them a flight risk. Additionally, the prosecution feared that if released, the accused might tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses, jeopardizing the case.

Court’s Observations and Verdict

After hearing both parties and reviewing the case records, the court noted that while the defense sought bail under Section 437(6) of CrPC due to trial delays, the provision was not applicable in this instance. Judge Joglekar emphasized that the trial had already commenced, and the prosecution had examined six witnesses so far. The court clarified that while Section 437(6) is mandatory, it allows judicial discretion in rejecting bail if compelling reasons exist.

The judge further referenced the trial court’s earlier order from November 9, 2023, which cited substantial evidence against the accused, their history of criminal activities, and concerns over their attendance in future proceedings. Given these factors, the court determined that no case had been made for granting bail and dismissed the application.

Conclusion

With this order, the accused will remain in judicial custody as the trial continues. The ruling underscores the court’s firm stance on serious financial crimes and its commitment to ensuring that accused individuals with a criminal history do not interfere with the judicial process.

The case will now proceed with the examination of remaining prosecution witnesses, and further developments are awaited.