Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 19, 2022 – Mehtab Amjad Shah @ Guddu, a 29-year-old driver from Bandra, has been denied bail in connection with a case of criminal breach of trust involving the misappropriation of a hired car. The Additional Sessions Judge, Purushottam B. Jadhav, presiding over the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, rejected Shah’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 854 of 2022) in Crime No. 326 of 2021, registered at Shahu Nagar Police Station.

The Allegations:

The case stems from a complaint filed by Sanjay Janu Pawar, who works in the Legal Department of Primemovers Mobility Technology Pvt. Ltd. According to the complaint, on August 25, 2021, the company received an order to hire a car from August 25 to 27, 2021. Following standard procedures, the company entrusted the car to accused Mohd. Fardeen.

On August 27, 2021, when the company’s Delivery Executive, Rajaram Shinde, attempted to contact Mohd. Fardeen for the car’s return, his mobile phone was switched off. Using the car’s GPS tracking system, the company discovered its location in Amravati. However, when employees were dispatched to Amravati, the car was not found. This led to the filing of a complaint alleging criminal breach of trust.

Investigation and Alleged Conspiracy:

The Investigating Officer revealed that the investigation suggested a conspiracy among several individuals, including the applicant, Mehtab Amjad Shah. The prosecution argued that Shah was part of a plan to misappropriate the vehicle.

Defense Arguments:

Shah’s lawyer, Mr. R.T. Jagasia, argued that the remand application did not specify Shah’s precise role in the alleged crime. He emphasized that the complainant did not allege that the car was entrusted to Shah. Furthermore, he claimed that Shah had no knowledge of the co-accused’s intentions. The defense highlighted that Shah was arrested on April 1, 2022, and had fully cooperated with the investigation. He also asserted that Shah had no prior criminal record and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Counter-Arguments:

Ms. C.A. Panshikar, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), opposed the bail application, stating that the car had not yet been recovered and that two other individuals involved in the conspiracy were still at large. She argued that there was a strong possibility that Shah, if released, would tamper with witnesses and repeat the offense. The APP also pointed out that Shah had been absconding since the commission of the offense, indicating a risk of flight.

Court’s Decision and Reasoning:

Judge Purushottam B. Jadhav rejected Shah’s bail application, citing the ongoing investigation and the risk of absconding and witness tampering. The court noted that while the offense is punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, the circumstances of the case, including the alleged conspiracy and Shah’s conduct, did not warrant granting bail during the investigation.

“Considering the conduct of the applicant, there is possibility that the applicant would abscond, if released on bail. Therefore, though, offence is punishable with imprisonment upto three years, the applicant cannot be released on bail during the investigation. If he is released on bail, it would hamper the investigation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail,” Judge Jadhav stated in his order.

Key Factors in the Bail Denial:

• Ongoing Investigation: The car has not been recovered, and other accused are still at large.
• Alleged Conspiracy: The prosecution’s claim of a conspiracy involving Shah.
• Risk of Absconding: Shah’s alleged absconding after the offense.
• Potential for Witness Tampering: The prosecution’s fear that Shah might influence witnesses.

Future Proceedings:

The case will now proceed with the investigation. The police will continue their efforts to recover the missing vehicle and apprehend the remaining accused. The prosecution will then have to prove the charges against Shah and the other accused beyond a reasonable doubt in the trial court.