Mumbai, February 21, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Anuradha Kirtikumar Ghorpade, accused of aiding her husband in a robbery. Additional Sessions Judge A.A. Kulkarni, presiding over Court Room No. 22, allowed Ghorpade’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 353 of 2024), citing her limited role in the alleged offense and the recovery of the incriminating evidence.

Ghorpade was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 40/2024, registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station, for offenses under sections 395 (dacoity), 392 (robbery), 170 (personating a public servant), 120(b) (criminal conspiracy), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the¹ Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, on January 16, 2024, at Amar Mahal Junction Bridge, Chembur, Mumbai, the complainant Pankaj Singh was traveling in a car with his driver and an employee. Unknown persons impersonating CBI officers stopped the car and took away bags containing ₹1,50,000 in cash. Later, the complainant realized that the individuals were not CBI officers and filed a complaint.

The prosecution alleged that Ghorpade, the wife of accused Kirtikumar Ghorpade, received a portion of the stolen money from her husband. During the investigation, police seized her mobile phone and recovered ₹3,80,000 from her.

Defense Arguments:

Ghorpade, through her advocate Ratnakar Daware, argued that she was falsely implicated. She claimed that her role was limited to receiving and concealing a portion of the stolen money. She emphasized that all incriminating evidence, including her mobile phone and the recovered cash, had been seized by the police. She argued that she had no active role in the robbery itself and that no further custodial interrogation was necessary. She also highlighted her clean criminal record and her willingness to abide by any bail conditions.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by SPP Ramesh Siroya, opposed the bail application. They argued that Ghorpade’s release would impede further investigation, as she had allegedly deleted conversations from her mobile phone, destroying evidence. They also claimed that a substantial amount of the stolen money (₹34,24,000) was yet to be recovered.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Limited Role: The court acknowledged that Ghorpade’s role was limited to allegedly concealing a portion of the stolen money and deleting conversations from her mobile phone.
• Recovery of Evidence: The court noted that her mobile phone and ₹3,80,000 had already been seized by the police.
• No Active Role in Robbery: The court observed that Ghorpade had no active role in the actual robbery incident.
• No Need for Further Custodial Interrogation: The court concluded that there was no need for further custodial interrogation.
• Clean Antecedents: The court highlighted that Ghorpade had no prior criminal record.

Judge Kulkarni concluded that Ghorpade was entitled to bail, subject to conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Ghorpade bail on the following conditions:

• She must furnish a Personal Bond (P.R.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of ₹1,00,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• She must appear before the police as and when required for further investigation until the charge sheet is filed.
• She must provide her residential address proof and contact numbers to the investigating officer.
• She must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• She must not leave India without prior court permission.
• Bail must be furnished before the learned court below.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• The importance of considering the accused’s specific role in the alleged offense.
• The relevance of the recovery of incriminating evidence.
• The court’s discretion to grant bail when further custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary.
• The courts consideration of the accused’s criminal history.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly in cases involving multiple accused and varying degrees of involvement.