Mumbai, March 14, 2024 – Ganesan Subramanyam Arundhudhiyar, accused in a kidnapping and extortion case, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar rejected Arundhudhiyar’s bail application (Bail Application No. 557 of 2024), citing his status as a habitual offender and the seriousness of the alleged crimes.
Arundhudhiyar was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 645/2023, registered at R.C.F. Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 364(A) (kidnapping for ransom), 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 387 (putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the1 peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code2 (IPC).
Prosecution’s Case:
The prosecution alleged that on October 31, 2023, at approximately 11:30 PM, the complainant, Mohd. Sarfraj Sheful Shaikh, was traveling on his scooter when Arundhudhiyar and his co-accused, Akib @ Batla, Sunita @ Rubina, and Rana, obstructed him. They allegedly abused him, forcibly took him to Tata Nagar, Govandi, and robbed him of ₹10,500. They also allegedly called the complainant’s brother and demanded a ransom of ₹60,000, threatening to kill the complainant if the ransom was not paid.
Defense Arguments:
Arundhudhiyar’s advocate, Harshali Bhavsar, argued that her client was falsely implicated and had not committed any crime. She stated that there was no recovery from him, the investigation was complete, and his further custody was not required. She also argued that he was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
Prosecution’s Objections:
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Sachin Patil, argued that Arundhudhiyar was a principal accused and a habitual offender. He contended that granting bail would lead to witness tampering and absconding. He also argued that Arundhudhiyar would not remain present for trial.
Court’s Decision:
Judge Salgar, after reviewing the case papers and hearing the arguments, noted the specific allegations against Arundhudhiyar in the FIR. He highlighted the seriousness of the offenses, particularly section 364(A) of the IPC, which carries a life imprisonment sentence.
The court dismissed the affidavit filed by the complainant stating he had no objection to bail, emphasizing that such affidavits are often influenced by the accused and should not be considered.
Judge Salgar also noted the investigating officer’s claim that Arundhudhiyar was a habitual offender with criminal antecedents. He expressed concerns that granting bail would lead to similar offenses being committed.
Regarding the defense’s reliance on Dheeraj Singh v. State, the court found the facts of that case, where 14 witnesses had been examined, to be dissimilar to the present case, where the prosecution’s evidence had not yet commenced.
The court concluded that there was sufficient material on record to show Arundhudhiyar’s involvement in the crime and that he was not entitled to bail.
Key Points from the Court’s Reasoning:
- Habitual Offender: The court gave significant weight to the investigating officer’s claim that Arundhudhiyar was a habitual offender.
- Seriousness of Offenses: The court emphasized the seriousness of the alleged offenses, particularly kidnapping for ransom.
- Specific Allegations: The court noted the specific allegations against Arundhudhiyar in the FIR.
- Affidavit Dismissed: The court dismissed the complainant’s no-objection affidavit, citing concerns about influence.
- Case Law Distinction: The court distinguished the cited case law, finding it inapplicable to the present facts.
Conclusion:
The court rejected Arundhudhiyar’s bail application, emphasizing his status as a habitual offender and the seriousness of the alleged crimes.