Mumbai, January 20, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Mohd. Husnain Ashfaque Ahmed Kaji, accused in a mobile phone snatching case. Additional Sessions Judge M.G. Deshpande, presiding over Court Room No. 16, denied the bail application (Bail Application No. 101 of 2022), citing the ongoing investigation, the potential for repeat offenses, and concerns for public safety.

Kaji was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 377/2021, registered at BKC Police Station, under sections 392 (robbery) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).¹

The Allegations and Arrest:

According to the complainant, Dinanath Rampawan Rajvanshi, on December 23, 2021, around 1:15 AM, he was walking along Kalanagar-Kurla Road when two individuals on a Suzuki Access motorcycle approached him. One of them forcibly snatched his mobile phone from his pocket, and the other urged him to “hurry up and run.” When the complainant shouted “thief,” bystanders, including auto-rickshaw drivers and motorcyclists, apprehended the accused, who was then brought to the police station. Kaji was arrested on December 23, 2021, after being caught red-handed by the public.

Defense Arguments:

Kaji, through his advocate Shaukat Khan, applied for bail, arguing for his release.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Rashmi Tendulkar, strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that the investigation was still in progress, that there was a possibility of Kaji repeating the crime, and that other accused individuals were yet to be arrested. The prosecution submitted a reply (Exh. 2) from the investigating officer, contending that the application should be rejected.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Deshpande, after hearing arguments and reviewing the record, made the following observations:

• Ongoing Investigation: The court noted that the investigation was still in progress, particularly regarding Kaji’s accomplice.
• Public Safety Concerns: The court expressed concern about the prevalence of mobile and ornament snatching incidents in Mumbai, posing a threat to public safety.
• Potential for Repeat Offenses: The court agreed with the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s observation that granting bail could lead to Kaji fleeing and repeating the offense.
• No Change in Circumstances: The court noted that Kaji’s first bail application had been rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate on similar grounds, and there was no change in circumstances to warrant granting bail.
• Apprehension By Public: The fact that the accused was apprehended by the public at the scene of the crime was heavily weighed.

Judge Deshpande concluded that Kaji had not made out a strong prima facie case for bail and that there was no change in circumstances to justify his release.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Ongoing Investigation: The court prioritized the completion of the investigation, particularly when accomplices were still at large.
• Public Safety: The court considered the broader impact of such crimes on public safety.
• Preventing Repeat Offenses: The court aimed to prevent the accused from engaging in similar criminal activities.
• Consistency in Rulings: The court upheld the previous ruling of the Metropolitan Magistrate, emphasizing the need for consistency in judicial decisions.
• Public Apprehension: The fact that the public caught the accused was a large factor.

This ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in cases involving robbery and public safety concerns, particularly when the investigation is ongoing.