Accused Rehmatullah Mohd. Shafik Shaikh Granted Bail in House Trespass and Theft Case: Court Orders Conditions Despite Prior Offences

Mumbai, April 20, 2024 – Rehmatullah Mohd. Shafik Shaikh, accused of house trespass and theft, has been granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge V.M. Sundale. The court, while acknowledging the accused’s prior involvement in similar offenses, deemed it appropriate to grant bail with stringent conditions.

Shaikh was arrested in connection with Crime No. 110/2024 registered at Mulund Police Station, Mumbai. He is charged under Sections 454 (lurking house-trespass by night), 457 (lurking house-trespass by night in order to commit offense), 380 (theft in dwelling house), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleges that Shaikh and his co-accused committed house trespass and stole cash and gold ornaments worth Rs. 1,30,000 from the complainant.

Prosecution’s Stance:

The prosecution, represented by Ms. Ratnavali Patil, APP, strongly opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offense and Shaikh’s involvement. They also highlighted that similar offenses were registered against Shaikh and his co-accused, and that Shaikh lacked a permanent residence. The prosecution argued that releasing him on bail would increase the risk of him committing similar offenses and fleeing from justice.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate Zoheb Shaikh, representing Shaikh, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that the co-accused had already been granted bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate. He emphasized that the investigation was nearly complete, and Shaikh’s presence was no longer required. Shaikh also provided his residential address, countering the prosecution’s claim that he lacked a permanent residence.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Sundale, after reviewing the records and hearing arguments from both sides, granted bail to Shaikh. The court noted that while four similar offenses were registered against Shaikh at Tilak Nagar and Shivaji Nagar Police Stations, this alone was not sufficient grounds to deny him bail in the present case.

“It is true that similar four offences are registered against the applicant in Tilak Nagar Police Station and Shivaji Nagar Police Station, but merely on that ground it will not proper to deny bail to the applicant in this crime,” Judge Sundale stated in his order.

The court also considered that the charges against Shaikh were not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment and that there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting his indefinite detention.

“The charges levelled against the applicant are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are no extra ordinary circumstances to keep the applicant behind bar for indefinite period and complete remaining part of investigation,” the judge noted.

Conditions of Bail:

Judge Sundale granted bail to Shaikh on the following conditions:

  • He must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount.
  • He and his surety must provide their mobile numbers, email addresses, and proof of residence.
  • He must not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or pressurize any witness.
  • He must not leave India without prior permission from the court.
  • He must attend Mulund Police Station once a week (every Monday) between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. until the chargesheet is filed.
  • Provisional cash bail of the same amount is allowed, with the condition that sureties must be furnished within four weeks, failing which the cash bail will be forfeited.
  • Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.
  • Bail to be furnished before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Implications:

This decision reflects the court’s balancing act between granting bail and ensuring the accused’s compliance with the law. By imposing stringent conditions, the court aimed to mitigate the risk of repeat offenses and ensure Shaikh’s cooperation with the investigation and trial. The court also showed that prior cases, while noted, do not automatically disqualify a person from receiving bail.