Mumbai, February 12, 2024: Mrs. Tabassum Suraj Sawant, Mrs. Pinky Vivek Jadhav, and Mr. Rahul Ramesh Dhanave have been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a case of robbery and assault. The order, issued by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, comes in response to Criminal Bail Application No. 288 of 2024, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The applicants were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 48/2024, registered at R.C.F. Police Station, for offences under Sections 395 (dacoity), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506 (criminal intimidation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace),¹ and 506-II (criminal intimidation with threat to cause death or grievous hurt), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.²

The Allegations and Prosecution’s Stance:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Rajlaxmi Bhandari, opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offences and the potential for future disputes and violence given the cross-complaints between the complainant and the family of accused No. 2 (Pinky Jadhav). They also expressed concerns about witness intimidation, evidence tampering, and flight risk.

The complainant alleged that she was assaulted, robbed of her gold chain and ₹25,000, and subjected to public humiliation by the accused. The prosecution emphasized the need to record witness statements and highlighted the potential for the accused to influence the investigation.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations:

Advocate Chitra Salunke, representing the accused, argued that the FIR was false and concocted, stemming from a prior dispute between the family of accused No. 2 and the complainant. She pointed out that accused No. 2 had filed a counter-FIR (No. 50/2024) against the complainant regarding the same incident. She stated that the accused were permanent residents of Mumbai, and no further recovery was needed. Additionally, she argued that video evidence showed the complainant removing her own gold chain, contradicting the robbery allegation.

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

• Cross-Complaints: The existence of cross-complaints indicated a prior dispute and raised questions about the veracity of the allegations.
• Video Evidence: The investigating officer confirmed that video footage showed the complainant removing her own gold chain, contradicting the robbery charge under Section 395 IPC.
• Lack of Recovery: There was no indication of any further recovery to be made from the accused, particularly from accused No. 2.
• Witness Statement: The statement of Anita Sachin Chougule supported the contention that the complainant herself took off her gold chain.
• Role of Accused: The role attributed to accused No. 3 was limited to abusive language.

Judge Kawdikar concluded that considering the video evidence, the lack of recovery, and the limited role of some accused, their continued incarceration was not necessary. She also noted that the accused were permanent residents of Mumbai, reducing the risk of absconding.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted bail to Mrs. Tabassum Suraj Sawant, Mrs. Pinky Vivek Jadhav, and Mr. Rahul Ramesh Dhanave with the following conditions:

• Each accused must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹15,000 with surety in the same amount.
• They must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• They must attend R.C.F. Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer with written notice until the charge sheet is filed.
• They must not commit any offence in the future.
• They cannot leave India without court permission.
• They must provide their permanent and temporary addresses and contact details to the police station.
• They must not contact the complainant or her family members.
• They must inform the police and court of any change in their residential address.
• Violation of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.

Implications and Future Proceedings:

The granting of bail highlights the court’s consideration of discrepancies in the evidence and the existence of cross-complaints. While the trial will proceed, and the prosecution will have the opportunity to present its evidence, the court’s decision underscores the importance of examining evidence critically and considering the context of disputes.