Bail Rejected in Gold Ornaments Robbery Case: Key Accused to Remain in Custody

Mumbai, January 4, 2024 – In a significant development, the City Civil and Sessions Court at Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Shri N. P. Tribhuwan, rejected the bail plea of Harimohan Viswanath Samanta, accused in a high-profile robbery and attempted murder case. The incident, involving a violent attack on a gold ornament factory owner, has captured public attention due to its brutal nature and the intricate conspiracy alleged by the prosecution.

The Incident

According to the prosecution, the crime occurred on December 22, 2023. The victim, Sapan Manna, who owns a gold ornament factory at Masjid Bandar, Mumbai, was ambushed near Y.M. Road, Bhat Bazar Junction, while on his way to Masjid Bandar Railway Station. The attackers, allegedly three in number, stabbed Manna in the stomach and inflicted injuries to his hands in an apparent robbery attempt.

Despite sustaining grievous injuries, Manna was rescued by bystanders and rushed to J.J. Hospital, where he remains in the ICU after undergoing stomach surgery. The police report states that the attack was premeditated, with the perpetrators targeting Manna for his knowledge of the factory’s cash and gold inventory.

The Arrest and Prosecution Case

The Pydhonie Police arrested one accused, Irshad Ahsanullah Khan, at the scene of the crime. During interrogation, Irshad allegedly implicated Harimohan Samanta, a fellow gold ornament maker who shared the same workspace as Manna. Investigators claim that Harimohan had prior knowledge of the factory’s operations and finances, making him a key conspirator.

The prosecution also presented evidence of phone calls exchanged between Harimohan and Irshad before and after the incident, suggesting collusion. Based on this information, Harimohan was taken into custody on December 22, 2023.

Defense Arguments

Harimohan’s legal counsel, Mrs. Sheela Gupta, argued that the accused was arrested solely based on the victim’s description of the attackers’ clothing. Gupta contended that Harimohan’s name does not appear in the CCTV footage obtained from the crime scene and insisted that he was being falsely implicated.

Furthermore, Gupta emphasized that Harimohan had no direct involvement in the robbery or the attack. She argued that Sections 394 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with causing hurt during a robbery and using deadly weapons in an attempt to commit robbery, respectively, were inapplicable to her client.

Prosecution’s Objections

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Mrs. Ranjana Budhwant, strongly opposed the bail plea, citing the gravity of the crime and the injuries sustained by the victim. Budhwant highlighted that Harimohan was intricately involved in the planning of the robbery, using his knowledge of the factory’s operations to aid the attack.

She further stated that the victim is still in critical condition in the ICU and that the investigation is ongoing. Releasing the accused on bail at this stage, Budhwant argued, would risk tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses.

Court’s Decision

After considering the arguments, Judge Tribhuwan noted that the victim’s injuries, the prima facie evidence of Harimohan’s involvement, and the gravity of the charges warranted the rejection of bail. The court stated that Sections 394 and 398 of the IPC, which mandate stringent punishments, were indeed applicable given the facts of the case.

Judge Tribhuwan observed that Harimohan’s alleged role in facilitating the robbery, combined with the ongoing investigation and the victim’s critical condition, made his release on bail undesirable.

Implications of the Order

The case underscores the judiciary’s stern approach toward violent crimes, especially those involving economic motives and grievous bodily harm. Legal experts have remarked that the court’s decision reflects a balanced consideration of the victim’s rights, public safety, and the ongoing investigation.

As of now, Harimohan Samanta remains in judicial custody, with the police continuing their investigation into the robbery conspiracy. The rejection of bail signifies a significant setback for the defense, which is expected to explore further legal remedies.

Public Reaction

The incident has sparked concern among Mumbai’s business community, particularly within the gold ornament manufacturing sector. Several associations have called for heightened security measures in and around Masjid Bandar to ensure the safety of artisans and traders.

For now, the focus remains on the recovery of the victim and the swift conclusion of the legal proceedings.

Leave a Comment