Mumbai, February 17, 2024: Sunil Anil Madiwala alias Barkiya, accused of attempting to steal diesel from a BPCL pipeline, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. The order, issued by Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar, comes in response to Bail Application No. 352 of 2024, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Madiwala was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 56/2024, registered at R.C.F. Police Station, for offences under Sections 379 (theft), 511 (attempt to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 15 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.

The Allegations and Prosecution’s Stance:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor O.S. Maraskolhe, opposed the bail application, arguing that Madiwala had attempted to damage government property and steal diesel by conspiring with other accused persons. They expressed concerns that granting bail would lead to similar offences and evidence tampering.

According to the prosecution, on January 17, 2024, unknown individuals were found tampering with the main C-2 SSD Line Pipe attached to a BPCL iron pipeline using a plastic pipe, attempting to steal diesel.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations:

Advocate Naresh Lalchandani, representing Madiwala, argued that his client was innocent and falsely implicated. He highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR and stated that Madiwala had been in custody for five days. He asserted that no purpose would be served by keeping his client behind bars and that Madiwala was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Judge Salgar, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, noted several crucial points:

• Delayed FIR: The incident allegedly occurred between December 15, 2023, and January 17, 2024, but the FIR was lodged on January 18, 2024, indicating a delay that was not explained in the FIR.
• No Recovery: Madiwala was arrested on February 5, 2024, but nothing incriminating was recovered from him.
• Investigation Completion: Prima facie, the investigation concerning Madiwala appeared to be complete.
• Criminal Antecedents: While the prosecution cited four prior cases against Madiwala, including one in Telangana, the court noted that he had been granted bail in all those cases. The court stated that bail cannot be denied solely on the ground of criminal antecedents.

Judge Salgar concluded that as the investigation was practically complete, Madiwala was entitled to be released on bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted bail to Madiwala with the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000 along with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must report to the concerned police station every Sunday between 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM until the charge sheet is filed.
• He and his sureties must provide their residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses to the investigating officer and inform of any changes.
• He must not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or promise any person related to the case and must not tamper with evidence or prosecution witnesses.
• He must not commit similar offences and must not misuse the liberty granted to him.
• He is prohibited from leaving India without prior permission from the Sessions Court.
• Violation of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.
• Provisional cash bail of ₹50,000 is allowed for four weeks to furnish surety.
• Bail proceedings are to be completed before the Learned Trial Court.

Implications and Future Proceedings:

The granting of bail to Madiwala underscores the court’s consideration of the delayed FIR, the lack of recovery of incriminating evidence, and the completion of the investigation. While the trial will proceed, and the prosecution will have the opportunity to present its evidence, the court’s decision highlights the balance between the presumption of innocence and the need to ensure the integrity of the legal process.