Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 5, 2024 – Khilansingh Kaluram Ahirwar, a 54-year-old worker from Madhya Pradesh, has had his bail application rejected by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a theft case registered at the Kurla Railway Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Ahirwar was arrested and charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to theft, in connection with C.R. No. 298/2024. The prosecution alleged that an unknown person stole the belongings of the complainant, Kannaya Sampati Singh, at Lokmanya Tilak Terminus. Ahirwar was arrested on March 13, 2024, based on CCTV footage and intelligence, and stolen property, including gold jewelry and cash, was recovered from his residence.

Arguments Presented:

Ahirwar, through his advocate Smita Pawar, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the case. He stated that he had undergone custodial interrogation, the investigation was complete, and he was the sole earning member of his family. He also claimed that he had no prior criminal record and was a permanent resident of his given address.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail application. They argued that Ahirwar was a habitual offender and that if released on bail, he might flee from justice, threaten witnesses, or tamper with evidence. They also highlighted his prior conviction in a similar case.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne rejected Ahirwar’s bail application. The court noted that stolen property was recovered from Ahirwar’s residence, linking him to the offense.

The court also considered the prosecution’s contention that Ahirwar was a habitual offender, citing his prior conviction in Regular Criminal Case No. 975 of 2018. The court stated that Ahirwar’s prior conviction for a similar offense indicated a likelihood of him committing similar offenses if released on bail.

The court also expressed concerns that Ahirwar might tamper with prosecution evidence or flee from justice. Based on these factors, the court concluded that Ahirwar was not entitled to bail.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of prior criminal convictions when determining bail applications. The court’s decision to deny bail was primarily based on Ahirwar’s prior conviction for a similar offense, which indicated a likelihood of recidivism. The court also considered the recovery of the stolen property from Ahirwar’s residence, which strengthened the prosecution’s case. This case reinforces the importance of criminal history when courts consider bail.