Mumbai, Maharashtra – July 26, 2022 – Mohd. Koumail Nazim Hussain Meghji has been denied bail in connection with a mobile phone theft case registered at Dadar Railway Police Station (CR No. 254/2022). The Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. A.A. Joglekar, of the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, rejected Meghji’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 1162 of 2022) citing CCTV footage evidence and his prior criminal record.

Background of the Case:

The case stems from a complaint filed by an individual who reported the theft of his mobile phone while boarding a slow local train at Sion station on April 1, 2022. The complainant stated that the phone was stolen from his pocket as he boarded the train at approximately 6:42 PM.

Investigation and Arrest:

The police investigation, aided by CCTV footage, identified Meghji as the alleged perpetrator. He was subsequently arrested on April 10, 2022, and charged under Section 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to theft with common intention.

Defense Arguments:

Mr. V.P. Agale, representing Meghji, argued that his client was falsely implicated in the case. He claimed that the stolen mobile phone was recovered at the instance of a co-accused and that Meghji had been in custody since April 10, 2022. The defense argued that further detention would serve no purpose and requested that Meghji be released on bail.

Prosecution’s Counter-Arguments:

Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), opposed the bail application. He stated that Meghji was positively identified at the scene of the crime through CCTV footage. The prosecution also presented a chart detailing seven similar prior offenses to Meghji’s discredit. They expressed concerns about Meghji’s potential to abscond and tamper with evidence if released.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Joglekar, after reviewing the application, the prosecution’s reply, and the case record, noted that Meghji was identified through CCTV footage and failed to explain his presence at the scene.

The court emphasized that while deciding a bail application, it is crucial to determine whether a prima facie case exists, without conducting a thorough investigation into the merits of the prosecution’s case.

Addressing the defense’s argument that the offense is bailable due to the quantum of punishment, Judge Joglekar clarified that Section 379 of the IPC, which carries a potential imprisonment of up to three years, falls under the category of non-bailable offenses according to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court concluded that granting bail while the investigation was still in progress would derail the investigation.

“Therefore, without any cogent reasons and that the investigation is under progress, granting of such relief would naturally derail the momentum of investigation. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that the application deserves no consideration,” Judge Joglekar stated in his order.

Key Factors in the Bail Denial:

• CCTV Footage Evidence: Meghji’s positive identification at the crime scene through CCTV footage.
• Prior Criminal Record: The prosecution’s presentation of seven similar prior offenses.
• Non-Bailable Offense: The court’s determination that Section 379 of the IPC falls under non-bailable offenses due to the potential three-year imprisonment.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court’s concern that granting bail would hamper the investigation.

Future Proceedings:

The investigation in the case will continue, and the prosecution will be required to prove the charges against Meghji beyond a reasonable doubt in the trial court. The court will monitor the progress of the investigation and Meghji’s custody.