MUMBAI, April 19, 2024 — The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, has rejected the regular bail application of Abdul Malik Abdul Salim Shaikh, who was arrested in connection with a mobile phone theft case registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code at Sion Police Station.
Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar (C.R. No.37) pronounced the oral order on April 18, 2024, refusing to grant bail primarily due to the accused’s extensive criminal track record and a significant admission made in the bail plea itself.
The On-the-Spot Theft Incident
The case relates to C.R. No. 121 of 2024, where the prosecution alleges that on April 3, 2024, at 6.22 p.m., the accused snatched an iPhone 11 mobile from the right pocket of the informant’s trousers. The incident occurred as the informant was alighting a bus at the Rani Laxmibai bus stop in Sion, Mumbai. The informant’s scream alerted co-passengers and a mob caught the accused on the spot before handing him over to the police.
Court Cites Accused’s Admission and Prior Crimes
The accused, represented by Ld. Adv. Mr. S. Z. Khatib, argued that he was falsely implicated, that recovery of the stolen item was complete (though alleged to be “planted”), and that his continued detention was causing hardship to his family. The defense also offered an undertaking that the accused would not enter the area if released on bail.
The prosecution, through Ld. APP Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal, vehemently opposed the application, stating the accused was a “record criminal” with seven similar criminal antecedents for theft, particularly at bus stops. The prosecution expressed apprehension that releasing him would lead to absconding, tampering with evidence, and threatening witnesses.
The Court leaned heavily on the prosecution’s objections and highlighted two critical factors:
- Admission of Absconding Risk: The Judge noted that the accused, in clause (h) of his own bail application grounds, stated that he was “likely to jump the bail.” The order stated that this admission “ipso-facto dis-entitles the applicant/accused for any such relief.”
- Abysmal Track Record: The court accepted the prosecution’s claim regarding the accused’s “abysmal track record,” stating there is “every possibility” the accused might tamper with evidence if enlarged on bail.
Investigation ‘At a Nascent Stage’
Despite the defense arguing that the charge-sheet had been filed (as noted in the application’s preamble), the Court’s order stated that the “Investigation is at a nascent stage” and that granting bail would “naturally derail the momentum of investigation.”
Concluding that the combination of the accused being caught red-handed, his criminal history, and the explicit statement about jumping bail made this an unfit case for granting relief, the Court rejected Criminal Bail Application No. 943 of 2024. The accused remains in judicial custody.