Mumbai, April 15, 2024 – The Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar (Court Room No. 58) granted bail to Sonu Chandran Diwakaran in connection with an attempted robbery case registered at V.B. Nagar Police Station (FIR No. 295 of 2023). The court cited the lack of a clear weapon description in the FIR, the completion of the investigation, and the submission of the charge sheet as key factors in its decision.

Background of the Case:

Sonu Chandran Diwakaran, a 38-year-old labourer, was arrested in connection with an incident at a jewellery shop in Kurla (West) on December 26, 2023. The complainant alleged that an unknown person entered his shop, attacked him, and attempted to rob him. The case was registered under Sections 398 (attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon) and 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint) and 352 (assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Arguments Presented:

Advocate Rajesh Kumar, representing Diwakaran, argued that his client was falsely implicated and arrested merely on suspicion. He emphasized that the investigation was practically over, the charge sheet was filed, and the applicant was not a habitual offender. He also argued that the victim was out of danger and the offence could not escalate.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sulbha Joshi, representing the State, opposed the bail application. She argued that CCTV footage was recovered, a knife and blade were recovered at the instance of the accused, and a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was still pending. She also argued that the applicant had committed the offence while on bail in another case and had a history of criminal offenses.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Pawar, after reviewing the FIR and the charge sheet, noted that the FIR did not clearly describe any specific weapon in the assailant’s hand. He also observed that the knife and blade recovered at the instance of the applicant were not specifically described by the complainant as the weapons used in the attempted robbery.

“There is no clear allegation in the FIR that informant had noticed any specific weapon in the hands of the said person,” Judge Pawar stated in his order. “In the absence of description given by the informant of the object which was allegedly in the hand of the assailant, there is prima facie no material at this stage to connect those articles with the alleged offence.”

The court also considered that the investigation was completed, and the charge sheet was submitted. While the prosecution argued that the TIP was pending, the court noted that the applicant had been arrested on February 1, 2024, and the investigating agency had sufficient time to conduct the TIP.

“Now, when charge-sheet is submitted after completing investigation, the reason that TIP is not conducted may not be a valid ground to reject application, if otherwise the applicant deserves to be released on bail,” Judge Pawar stated.

The court also observed that one of the other offenses registered against the applicant was related to the scooter allegedly used in the crime and was filed against an unknown person.

Considering these factors, the court granted bail to Sonu Chandran Diwakaran, ordering his release upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.

The court imposed several conditions, including that the applicant must not tamper with evidence, must not commit similar offenses, must not contact the complainant, must provide his address and contact details, and must attend the trial regularly.

Implications and Significance:

This ruling highlights the court’s emphasis on the specific details of the FIR and the evidence collected during the investigation, particularly in cases involving alleged weapons. The decision underscores that when the FIR lacks a clear description of the weapon and the investigation is complete, bail can be granted with appropriate conditions.

The court’s decision also reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that the applicant’s rights are protected while also imposing conditions to address the prosecution’s concerns about potential witness tampering and flight risk.

The order was dated April 10, 2024, and signed and uploaded on April 15, 2024, at 3:48 p.m.