Mumbai, July 8, 2022 – Rohit Santosh Gupta, accused of mobile theft, has been denied bail by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar. The court cited Gupta’s habitual involvement in similar crimes, his prior criminal record, and his violation of bail conditions in other cases as reasons for rejecting his bail application.

Gupta was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 248/2022 registered at Dadar Railway Police Station. He is charged under Section 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case:

The case originated from a complaint filed by an individual whose mobile phone was stolen. During the investigation, the police recovered the stolen phone from Babu Chanchal, who revealed that he had purchased it from Gupta. Subsequently, Gupta was apprehended and arrested.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate Vijay Agale, representing Gupta, argued that her client was falsely implicated and that there was no substantial evidence linking him to the crime. She also submitted that Gupta was arrested on suspicion and that the investigation was complete, with no further recoveries needed. Agale requested the court to grant bail to Gupta.

Prosecution’s Stance:

Ld. APP. Abhijit Gondwal, representing the State, opposed the bail application, arguing that Gupta’s role in the crime was clearly established. The prosecution highlighted Gupta’s prior criminal record, which included similar offenses, and expressed concerns that he might abscond or tamper with evidence if released on bail. They also stated that the investigation was ongoing and the charge sheet was yet to be filed.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Joglekar, after reviewing the case records, concluded that there was prima facie evidence of Gupta’s involvement in the crime. The court also noted Gupta’s “abysmal track record” of similar offenses.

“On meticulous examination of case record it evinces to me that, the role of the Applicants/accused is in prima-facie established during the course of investigation. Moreover, the abysmal track record to the discredit of the applicant/accused speaks in quantum,” Judge Joglekar stated in his order.

The court emphasized that while considering a bail application, it is essential to determine whether a prima facie case exists, without conducting a detailed examination of the merits of the prosecution’s case.

The court also highlighted that Gupta was a habitual offender who had violated bail conditions in other cases.

“Considering the case in hand it is evident that the Applicants/accused is habitual in committing such crimes. Moreover, the applicant/accused already enlarged on bail in the other offences and also have transgressed the bail conditions therein,” the judge noted.

The court expressed concerns that granting bail would hinder the ongoing investigation.

“Also, granting of bail would naturally derail the momentum of investigation. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that, as the application being devoid of merits needs to be rejected,” Judge Joglekar concluded.

Consequently, the court rejected Gupta’s bail application, ensuring his continued detention pending further investigation and trial. This decision underscores the court’s stance against granting bail to habitual offenders, especially those with a history of violating bail conditions.