Mumbai, May 13, 2024 – Kismat Ali Mohd. Chaudhary, accused in a robbery and extortion case, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar allowed Chaudhary’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 1111 of 2024), citing the lack of specific allegations against him in the FIR and his apparently minor role in the alleged crime.

Chaudhary was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 122/2024, registered at Chunabhatti Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 392 (robbery), 387 (extortion), 379 (theft), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(2) (criminal intimidation),¹ and 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and section 37(1)(a) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that accused numbers 1 to 5 (Akash Khandagale, Roshan, Rushikesh Bhoval, Rakesh Rane, and Fallebhai) demanded ransom from the complainant, threatened to kill him, forcibly took ₹2,000 from his pocket, assaulted his laborers, and stole iron pipes worth ₹1,40,785. Chaudhary was implicated under section 411 of the IPC for allegedly purchasing stolen property without proper scrutiny.

Defense Arguments:

Chaudhary’s advocate, Rahat Shaikh, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that his name was not mentioned in the FIR. He stated that the investigation was almost complete and that Chaudhary was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), O.S. Maraskolhe, opposed the bail, arguing that the weapons used in the crime were yet to be recovered and that Chaudhary might tamper with prosecution evidence if released.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Salgar, after reviewing the FIR and the prosecution’s reply, noted the following:

• Lack of Specific Allegations: Chaudhary’s name was not mentioned in the FIR, and there were no specific allegations against him.
• Primary Accused: The FIR primarily implicated accused numbers 1 to 5 in the robbery and extortion.
• Section 411 Implication: Chaudhary was implicated only under section 411 of the IPC, which carries a maximum punishment of three years.
• No Recovery: Nothing was recovered from Chaudhary.
• Completed Investigation: The court noted that the investigation was almost complete.
• Triable by Magistrate: The court noted that the alleged offense was triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate.
• Time in Custody: Chaudhary had been in jail since April 1, 2024.

Considering these factors, the court concluded that further detention of Chaudhary was not required and that he was entitled to bail on conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

Judge Salgar granted Chaudhary bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He must attend the concerned police station every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet.
• He must not commit similar offenses.
• He and his sureties must provide their residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses to the investigating officer and inform of any changes.
• He must not directly or indirectly influence or threaten any person acquainted with the case.
• He must not leave India without prior permission from the trial court.
• Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.
• He was provided with provisional cash bail of 25,000 for a period of four weeks to provide surety.
• Bail must be furnished before the Learned Trial Court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s consideration of the following factors when granting bail:

• Lack of specific allegations in the FIR.
• The accused’s apparently minor role in the alleged crime.
• The completion of the investigation.
• The nature of the offense and the maximum punishment prescribed.
• The length of time the accused has already been in custody.
• The court’s power to set conditions to ensure the accused’s presence.