Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 4, 2024 – Mustaqeem Salauddin Ansari, a 20-year-old laborer, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a gold bangle robbery case registered at the L.T. Marg Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Ansari was arrested and charged under Section 392 (robbery) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, and Section 37/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, in connection with Crime No. 111/2024.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, Samood Dayem Mallik, a delivery boy for a gold ornament factory, was robbed of two gold bangles worth Rs. 9,00,000 while on his way to deliver them. Three individuals, including Ansari, allegedly assaulted and threatened him with a knife before snatching the bag containing the bangles.

Arguments Presented:

Ansari, through his advocate Kamlesh M. Singh, argued that:

• He was falsely implicated in the case on suspicion.
• There was a delay in filing the FIR, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of events.
• There was no prima facie case against him.
• He was the sole earning member of his family and had been in judicial custody for over a month.
• The offense was not punishable with life imprisonment or death.
• He had no prior criminal record.
• A co-accused, Hussain Yasin Shaikh, had already been granted bail on March 28, 2024, in Criminal B.A. No. 772/2024, and therefore, he was entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ranjana Budhwant, argued that:

• Ansari had given a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to the recovery of the stolen gold bangles and the knife.
• He was part of a group of three individuals who committed the robbery.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge N.P. Tribhuwan granted bail to Ansari. The court considered the following factors:

• Recovery of Stolen Goods and Weapon: The stolen gold bangles and the knife were recovered based on Ansari’s disclosure statement.
• Parity with Co-accused: A co-accused had already been granted bail, and the court found it appropriate to grant bail to Ansari on the ground of parity.
• Completed Investigation (Mostly): The court noted that most of the investigation was complete.
• Lack of Habitual Offender Evidence: The prosecution did not provide evidence to show that Ansari was a habitual offender.
• Nature of Offense and Punishment: The court considered the nature of the offense and the punishment prescribed for it.
• Length of Custody: The accused was in jail from 14.02.2024.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Mustaqeem Salauddin Ansari on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• No Tampering with Witnesses: He must not directly or indirectly tamper with any prosecution witnesses.
• Cooperation with Investigation: He must cooperate with the investigation and be available for interrogation when required.
• Police Station Attendance: He must report to the concerned police station every alternate Thursday between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM for three months or until the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
• No Misuse of Liberty: He must not misuse his liberty.
• Address and Contact Information: He must provide his detailed address and mobile number to the investigating officer and the court, and inform them of any changes.
• Bail Execution: The bail must be executed before the trial court.
• Information to Trial Court: The trial court must be informed of the bail order.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the recovery of stolen goods, the principle of parity, and the progress of the investigation when determining bail applications. The court’s decision to grant bail reflects its assessment that further detention was unnecessary, given the recovery of the stolen goods and the parity with the co-accused. The court also took into account that the investigation was mostly completed.