Mumbai, January 17, 2024 – In a significant development in the high-profile gold heist case, the Additional Sessions Judge of Mumbai, Dr. A. A. Joglekar, rejected the bail application of Parul Nilesh Shrivastava, an accused in a robbery case involving gold worth approximately ₹27 lakhs. The court found prima facie evidence linking her to the crime and emphasized the potential risk of evidence tampering.

Case Background

The case stems from an incident on December 17, 2023, when the complainant was transporting a bag containing casting gold and gold filing dust weighing 35 kilograms, with 650 grams of gold, from Kolkata to Mumbai by train. While traveling in a taxi near Lower Parel, the complainant was intercepted by six individuals who forcibly took possession of the gold-laden bag. The stolen articles were valued at approximately ₹27 lakhs.

Following the incident, the Mumbai Police launched an investigation, leading to multiple arrests, including that of Parul Shrivastava. The police alleged that she played a key role in aiding her husband, the prime accused, in evading capture. Additionally, during a search of her residence, a portion of the stolen gold was reportedly recovered, further substantiating the case against her.

Prosecution’s Stand

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Abhijeet Gondwal, strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that Shrivastava was actively involved in facilitating her husband’s escape. He stated that her connections with other co-accused were established through call data records (CDR). The prosecution further contended that the remaining stolen gold was yet to be recovered and that granting bail could lead to evidence tampering or intimidation of witnesses. Given these concerns, the prosecution urged the court to deny bail.

Defense’s Argument

Representing the accused, Advocate Hitendra Gandhi, along with Advocate Chandan Yadav, argued that Shrivastava had been arrested based on mere suspicion and had no direct involvement in the robbery. The defense contended that the recovery of the stolen items was allegedly planted by the police and that the authorities arrested her only because they failed to capture the main accused. The defense emphasized that Shrivastava was not present at the crime scene and should be granted bail.

Court’s Observations and Verdict

After hearing both sides, the court ruled that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to establish Shrivastava’s involvement in the crime. Judge Joglekar noted that:

• The accused was instrumental in helping the prime accused evade arrest.
• The recovered gold from her residence corroborated the prosecution’s claims.
• Call data records indicated her association with the other co-accused.
• The case was in the early stages of investigation, and granting bail could derail the process.

Citing these reasons, the court denied bail, stating that the risk of evidence tampering and absconding was too high. The judge emphasized that while the defense’s claim regarding planted evidence could be examined during the trial, it was not a sufficient ground for bail at this stage.

Legal Implications and Next Steps

With the bail application rejected, Shrivastava remains in judicial custody as the investigation continues. The police are still searching for the prime accused and attempting to recover the remaining stolen gold. Legal experts suggest that the defense may appeal the decision in a higher court.

This case underscores the serious nature of organized crime involving precious metals and highlights the judiciary’s firm stance against such offenses. As the trial progresses, further revelations are expected regarding the larger network behind this high-value heist.

For further updates on the case, stay tuned to our legal and crime news coverage.