Mumbai, March 2, 2024 – The Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Raja Naikar @ Raja Venu Manikam Nadar @ K. D. Raja, accused in a robbery and criminal intimidation case. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar, presiding over Court Room No. 37, denied the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 399 of 2024), citing the recovery of a weapon used in the crime and the accused’s extensive criminal antecedents.

Raja was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 337 of 2023, registered at Wadala T.T. Police Station, for offenses under sections 392 (robbery), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), 447 (criminal trespass), 431 (mischief by injury to public road, bridge or river), 283 (danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation), 268 (public nuisance), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with sections¹ 37(1)(a), 135, and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The Allegations and Arrest:

According to the prosecution, on October 24, 2023, at around 6:15 AM, Raja and his accomplices threatened the complainant with a knife, unloaded dumper mud at the site, encroached upon the site, and forcibly snatched ₹700 from the complainant.

Defense Arguments:

Raja, through his advocate Tripti R. Shetty, argued that he was falsely implicated, the investigation was concluded, the recovery was already effected, and the charge sheet had been filed. He claimed that his presence was not established by CCTV footage, that the prosecution’s version was concocted, and that the recovery panchnama was falsely added to the charge sheet.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Abhijeet Gondwal, opposed the bail application. They argued that Raja had committed robbery despite facing externment proceedings, that the investigation was ongoing, and that he had 23 criminal antecedents. They highlighted the recovery of the knife used in the crime based on Raja’s disclosure statement and expressed concerns about his absconding, tampering with evidence, and threatening witnesses.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Joglekar, after hearing arguments and reviewing the record, made the following observations:

• Disclosure Statement and Recovery: The court noted that Raja had voluntarily made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the knife and ₹500, which dis-entitled him to bail.
• Presence at the Scene: The court rejected Raja’s argument that his presence was not established by CCTV footage, as he had not denied his presence earlier.
• Criminal Antecedents: The court highlighted Raja’s extensive criminal record, which weighed against granting bail.
• Tampering of Evidence: The court expressed concern about the possibility of Raja tampering with evidence if released.
• Prima Facie Case: The court found that a prima facie case existed against Raja.

Judge Joglekar concluded that Raja’s application did not merit consideration and denied bail.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Disclosure Statements and Recoveries: The court gave weight to the recovery of the weapon based on the accused’s disclosure statement.
• Criminal Antecedents: The court considered the accused’s criminal record as a relevant factor in denying bail.
• Prevention of Evidence Tampering: The court prioritized the prevention of evidence tampering.
• Prima Facie Case: The court considered if a prima facie case existed.

This ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in cases involving serious offenses like robbery, particularly when there is strong evidence implicating the accused and when the accused has a history of criminal activity.