Mumbai, January 11, 2024: The Additional Sessions Court in Mumbai has rejected the bail application of two accused, Krishna Kumar Gaurilal Gautam (21) and Lalbahadur Somai Maurya (36), who were arrested in connection with a robbery case involving Rs. 9,00,000. The case, registered as C.R. No. 522 of 2023 at Kurla Police Station, pertains to an incident where a shop employee was ambushed and robbed of a bag containing cash deposits. The accused had sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the court denied their plea, citing ongoing investigations and the severity of the crime.
Case Background
The prosecution’s case is based on a complaint filed by Chirag Rameshchandra Chaplot, who works as a supervisor at ‘Sheetal Laminate,’ a plywood store in Kurla. According to the complaint, on December 16, 2023, the store owner’s son had kept Rs. 5,00,000 in the shop, instructing Chirag to deposit the amount along with the day’s collection of Rs. 4,00,000 at an ICICI Bank ATM in Sion.
At around 7:50 p.m., after closing the shop, Chirag was walking towards his coworker Jitendra’s parked bike when he was attacked by three masked individuals. One assailant grabbed him by the neck, another threw chili powder in his eyes, and the third snatched the bag containing Rs. 9,00,000. Though bystanders attempted to chase the robbers, they managed to escape. The police registered an FIR on December 17, 2023, at 2:30 a.m., initially against unknown persons.
Arrest and Investigation
The investigation led to the arrest of Krishna Kumar Gautam on December 18, 2023, followed by the arrest of Lalbahadur Maurya and another accused on the same day. The police claim that Gautam’s arrest provided crucial leads, helping them track down the other suspects. During the investigation, the police recovered Rs. 1,50,000 from Gautam and Rs. 25,000 from Maurya, which they suspect were their shares from the stolen money.
The prosecution alleged that Maurya, who worked at the plywood shop, was part of the conspiracy and had provided information to the robbers about the cash deposits. The key suspect, Shabbir Shaikh, believed to be the mastermind, is still absconding. The police are also awaiting the results of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) to confirm the identities of the accused.
Arguments in Court
Defense Arguments:
The defense contended that their clients were falsely implicated, stating that the FIR was against unidentified persons who had covered their faces with masks. They argued that there was no concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime and that the recovered money was not specifically identifiable as the stolen amount. Additionally, they emphasized that no direct role was attributed to the accused in the FIR and that the prosecution had not explained how they had identified the suspects. They also argued that the first informant had sustained minor injuries and had recovered, negating the need for continued incarceration.
Prosecution Arguments:
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution stated that the robbery was a premeditated act involving a criminal conspiracy. The police insisted that the accused had a clear role in the crime, with evidence pointing to their involvement. They highlighted the seriousness of the offense under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with robbery and armed robbery. The prosecution further argued that the investigation was still ongoing, with a key accused yet to be arrested, and that granting bail could lead to witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
Court’s Decision
After hearing both sides, Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar ruled against granting bail. The court noted that the stolen money was substantial, and the crime was executed in a planned manner. The fact that the accused were not local residents and that cash was recovered from them further weakened their case for bail. The judge also stressed the importance of completing the investigation, particularly the Test Identification Parade, which could confirm the identities of the attackers.
The court also highlighted the pending arrest of the alleged mastermind, Shabbir Shaikh, and the potential risk of the accused interfering with the investigation. Given the serious nature of the charges, including the use of weapons and physical assault, the judge found it inappropriate to grant bail at this stage.
Conclusion
With the bail plea rejected, the accused will remain in judicial custody as the police continue their investigation. The case serves as a reminder of the challenges law enforcement faces in solving planned robberies and ensuring justice for victims. As the investigation progresses, the police will focus on arresting the absconding suspect and gathering further evidence to strengthen their case against the accused.