Mumbai, March 22, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has denied bail to Sonu Chandran Diwakaran, accused in an attempted robbery case. Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar, presiding over Court Room No. 58, rejected the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 563 of 2024), citing CCTV footage implicating the accused and the ongoing investigation.
Diwakaran was arrested in connection with FIR No. 295 of 2023 (CCTNS No. 416 of 2023), registered at V.B. Nagar Police Station, for offenses under sections 398 (attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), and 352 (assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Allegations and FIR:
According to the FIR, on December 26, 2023, an unknown person entered the complainant’s jewelry shop and attacked him. The assailant attempted to assault the complainant with a weapon, threatened him, and fled on a red Activa motorcycle. Diwakaran was later arrested as the alleged culprit.
Defense Arguments:
Diwakaran, through his advocate Rajesh Kumar, argued that he was falsely implicated and arrested merely on suspicion. He claimed that the property was planted on him and that the victim was out of danger. He argued that the investigation was practically over and that the assailant was wearing a black helmet, making identification difficult. He also argued that the knife allegedly recovered from him was planted, as there was no description of such a weapon in the FIR.
Prosecution’s Objections:
The prosecution, represented by APP Sulbha Joshi, opposed the bail application. They argued that three offenses were registered against Diwakaran, making him a habitual offender. They expressed concerns that he might threaten the informant and witnesses or abscond. They also highlighted that Diwakaran was apprehended from Karnataka, indicating a flight risk.
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
Judge Pawar, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:
- CCTV Footage: The court noted that CCTV footage was collected from the crime scene, which prima facie implicated Diwakaran.
- Recovery of Motorcycle: The court observed that the motorcycle used by Diwakaran was recovered and that it was a stolen vehicle (C.R. No. 610 of 2023 at Ghatkopar Police Station).
- Recovery of Knife: The court noted the recovery of a knife at Diwakaran’s instance.
- Test Identification Parade: The court highlighted that a Test Identification Parade was yet to be conducted.
- Seriousness of Offense: The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense under section 398 of the IPC.
- Incomplete Investigation: The court noted that the investigation was still incomplete.
- Flight Risk: The court considered Diwakaran’s arrest from Karnataka as an indication of a flight risk.
- Previous Offenses: The court noted that two other similar crimes were registered against Diwakaran, indicating a possibility of repetition.
Judge Pawar concluded that, considering the CCTV footage, the ongoing investigation, the flight risk, and the previous offenses, Diwakaran could not be admitted to bail at this stage.
Significance of the Order:
This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:
- CCTV Footage: The court gave significant weight to the CCTV footage implicating the accused.
- Recovery of Stolen Property: The court considered the recovery of the stolen motorcycle used in the crime.
- Pending Investigation: The court considered the ongoing investigation and the need to conduct a Test Identification Parade.
- Flight Risk: The court considered the accused’s arrest from another state as an indication of a flight risk.
- Previous Offenses: The court considered the accused’s criminal history as a factor in denying bail.
This ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in serious offenses like attempted robbery, particularly when there is strong evidence implicating the accused and concerns about flight risk and witness safety.