Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 20, 2022 – Mohammed Fardeen Mohammed Mustaqim Hashmi’s bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in a car theft case. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Purushottam B. Jadhav, denied bail, citing the ongoing investigation, the non-recovery of the stolen car, and the risk of Hashmi absconding.
Hashmi was arrested in connection with Crime No. 326 of 2021, registered at the Shahu Nagar Police Station, and was charged under section 406 (criminal breach of trust) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal1 Code (IPC).
Background of the Case:
The complainant, Sanjay Janu Pawar, working for Primemover Mobility Technology Pvt. Ltd., reported that Hashmi hired a car from the company for two days (August 25-27, 2021). On August 27, when the company’s delivery executive attempted to contact Hashmi to retrieve the car, his mobile was switched off. The car’s GPS location was traced to Amravati, but it was not found when company employees went to the location. The prosecution alleged that Hashmi committed a breach of trust by misappropriating the car.
Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:
A.K. Pathan, representing Hashmi, argued that his client had given the car to a friend. He emphasized that Hashmi had provided his Aadhar Card and driving license when renting the car, indicating no malafide intent. He also claimed that his friend committed the crime and that Hashmi had no criminal intent, and that he paid some amount.
Prosecution’s Objections:
C.A. Panshikar, representing the State, opposed the bail application, stating that the car had not been recovered and that two other associates of Hashmi were yet to be traced. The prosecution argued that Hashmi and his associates conspired to misappropriate the car and that there was a possibility of tampering with witnesses and repetition of the offense. They also emphasized that Hashmi had been absconding since the crime, indicating a flight risk.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Judge Jadhav dismissed Hashmi’s defense arguments as unsubstantiated and noted that they lacked supporting material. The court acknowledged the investigating officer’s assertion that all the accused conspired to misappropriate the car.
The court emphasized the ongoing investigation, the non-recovery of the car, and the untraced associates. Considering Hashmi’s conduct and the risk of him absconding, the court determined that releasing him on bail would hinder the investigation. Despite the offense being punishable with up to three years of imprisonment, the court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting bail.
Outcome:
The court’s decision reflects a focus on the ongoing investigation and the need to prevent any obstruction. The non-recovery of the stolen car and the untraced associates, combined with Hashmi’s absconding, led the court to conclude that he posed a flight risk and could potentially tamper with evidence or witnesses. Therefore, the bail application was rejected.