Mumbai, May 10, 2024 – Deepak Chhaburao Ashtekar, accused in a ₹50 lakh robbery case, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge N.G. Shukla rejected Ashtekar’s bail application (Bail Application No. 1127 of 2024), citing his identification in a test identification parade and the recovery of a significant amount of money at his instance.

Ashtekar was arrested in connection with Crime No. 40/2024, registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 395 (dacoity), 392 (robbery), 170 (personating a public servant), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that Ashtekar and his co-accused conspired and forcibly entered the vehicle of complainant Pankaj Umashankar Singh. Ashtekar allegedly pointed a firearm at Singh and robbed him of ₹50 lakh.

Defense Arguments:

Ashtekar’s advocate, Vikas Joshi, argued that there was a delay in filing the FIR, and the initial FIR mentioned a robbed amount of ₹1.5 lakh, which was later changed to ₹50 lakh in a supplementary statement. He argued that the prosecution had not adequately explained how Singh possessed ₹50 lakh. He also pointed out discrepancies in the description of the robber and argued that the recovery of ₹6 lakh, claimed to be part of the robbed amount, was actually from the sale of Ashtekar’s father’s agricultural land. He claimed Ashtekar was in Mumbai for a job with co-accused Vijay Rasal and was not involved in the crime.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), R.V. Tiwari, argued that Ashtekar was the main accused, having robbed the amount at gunpoint, and that the firearm was seized during the investigation. He highlighted the recovery of ₹6 lakh at Ashtekar’s instance and his identification in a test identification parade. He also stated that Ashtekar was related to absconding accused Vijay Rasal and could potentially influence witnesses or hinder Rasal’s arrest if released.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Shukla, after reviewing the charge sheet and submissions, noted that the complainant had identified Ashtekar in a test identification parade. He acknowledged the initial discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the FIR but noted that the complainant had clarified the presence of ₹50 lakh in a bag in the vehicle’s boot space.

The court also considered the statements of witnesses Arun Tiwari and Sagar Shetty, which supported the complainant’s claim of receiving the ₹50 lakh. Regarding the recovered ₹6 lakh, the court dismissed Ashtekar’s explanation of it being from a land sale, deeming it unacceptable at this stage.

Considering Ashtekar’s role, the recovery of the money at his instance, and his identification in the test identification parade, the court concluded that it was not inclined to grant him bail.

Key Points from the Court’s Reasoning:

• Identification: The complainant’s identification of Ashtekar in the test identification parade was a crucial factor.
• Recovery: The recovery of ₹6 lakh at Ashtekar’s instance linked him to the crime.
• Witness Statements: Statements from witnesses corroborated the complainant’s possession of the robbed amount.
• Credibility: The court found Ashtekar’s explanation for the recovered money to be not credible at this stage.

Conclusion:

The court rejected Ashtekar’s bail application, emphasizing the strength of the evidence against him, including his identification and the recovery of a portion of the robbed amount.