Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 18, 2024 – Deelip Radheshyam Agrahari, a 29-year-old resident of Chembur, Mumbai, has had his bail application rejected by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a mobile phone theft case registered at the Wadala Railway Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Agrahari was arrested and charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to theft, in connection with C.R. No. 267/2024. The prosecution alleged that on March 14, 2024, the complainant, Sajida Abdul Shaikh, was traveling in a local train when an unknown person snatched her mobile phone. Agrahari was subsequently arrested, and the stolen mobile phone was found in his possession during a personal search.

Arguments Presented:

Agrahari, through his advocate Saurabh Gaikwad, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the case. He stated that he had undergone custodial interrogation, the investigation was complete, and he was the sole earning member of his family. He also claimed that he had no prior criminal record and was a permanent resident of his given address.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) B.G. Rajput, opposed the bail application. They argued that Agrahari was a habitual offender and that if released on bail, he might flee from justice, threaten witnesses, or tamper with evidence. They also highlighted his prior conviction in a similar case.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne rejected Agrahari’s bail application. The court noted that the stolen mobile phone was found in Agrahari’s possession, prima facie linking him to the offense.

The court also considered the prosecution’s contention that Agrahari was a habitual offender, citing his prior conviction in C.R. No. 1752/2017 registered at Kurla Railway Police Station under Section 379 of the IPC. The court stated that Agrahari’s prior conviction for the same offense indicated a likelihood of him committing similar offenses if released on bail.

The court also expressed concerns that Agrahari might tamper with prosecution evidence or flee from justice. Based on these factors, the court concluded that Agrahari was not entitled to bail.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of prior criminal convictions when determining bail applications. The court’s decision to deny bail was primarily based on Agrahari’s prior conviction for a similar offense, which indicated a likelihood of recidivism. The court also considered the recovery of the stolen item from Agrahari’s possession, which strengthened the prosecution’s case. This case shows the importance of criminal history when courts consider bail.