Mumbai, March 20, 2024 – Lalbahadur Somai Maurya, accused in a robbery case, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar allowed Maurya’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 562 of 2024), citing the completion of the investigation and the accused’s indirect involvement in the alleged crime.

Maurya was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 522 of 2023, registered at Kurla Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous¹ hurt), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),² and section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, a supervisor at a plywood store, was robbed of ₹9,00,000 while on his way to deposit the money in an ATM. The complainant was ambushed by three unknown persons, who threw chili powder in his eyes and snatched the bag containing the cash. Maurya, an employee at the same store, was implicated in the conspiracy.

Defense Arguments:

Maurya’s advocate, Rajesh Kumar, argued that his client was innocent and that the FIR was registered against three unknown persons with covered faces. He pointed out that the recovered property was not specifically identified and that no direct role was attributed to Maurya. He emphasized that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet was filed, and the trial was likely to be lengthy. He also stated that Maurya had social roots in the community.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Sulbha Joshi, opposed the bail, arguing that Maurya was involved in the conspiracy and that there was a possibility he might tamper with the investigation or pressurize witnesses. She also contended that he might flee from justice.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Pawar, after considering the submissions, noted that Maurya was allegedly involved in the conspiracy and that ₹25,000 was recovered from him. However, he observed that Maurya was not directly and actively involved in the alleged ambush.

The court also noted that Maurya’s earlier bail application was rejected when the investigation was ongoing. Now that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet was filed, and considering that Maurya had no criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident of Mumbai, the court concluded that he was entitled to bail.

Conditions of Bail:

Judge Pawar granted Maurya bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹30,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case.
• He must not tamper with the prosecution’s evidence.
• He must not commit a similar offense while on bail.
• He must not try to contact the complainant personally or through anyone else until the conclusion of the trial.
• He must submit documents regarding his permanent address and contact details to the concerned police station and the court within seven days of his release and inform them of any changes in the future.
• He must attend the trial regularly.
• Breach of any of these conditions will result in the cancellation of his bail.
• He was granted provisional cash bail of ₹30,000 for a period of six weeks.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s consideration of the following factors when granting bail:

• Completion of Investigation: The court considered the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet.
• Indirect Involvement: The court considered the accused’s indirect involvement in the alleged crime.
• Lack of Criminal Antecedents: The court considered the absence of any criminal antecedents against the accused.
• Permanent Residence: The court considered the accused’s permanent residence and social roots in the community.
• Conditions to Ensure Presence: The court imposed conditions to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial and prevent any interference with the investigation.