The Judicial Proceedings and Charges
On April 30, 2024, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, Dr. A. A. Joglekar (C.R. No. 37), delivered an order allowing the Criminal Bail Application No. 1062 of 2024. The application was filed by the accused, Abhishek Prabhashankar Yadav, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking regular bail in connection with C.R. No. 361 of 2023 registered at RAK Marg Police Station. The charges against Mr. Yadav are for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which relates to robbery. The accused was represented by Ld. Advocate Mr. Anjaykumar R. Kori, while the State of Maharashtra was represented by Ld. APP Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal.
Details of the Prosecution’s Case
The case stems from an incident that occurred on September 27, 2023. According to the prosecution, the informant was traveling on her motor scooter around 3:20 PM after picking up her son from school. As they reached the area ahead of the gate of Rashtriy Mill Majdur Sangh on G. D. Baker Marg, an unidentified individual on a black motorcycle, wearing a helmet and a brown T-shirt, approached her. This individual then snatched the ‘Mangalsutra’ the informant was wearing before fleeing the scene. The offence was initially lodged against this unknown person, but subsequent investigation led to the arrest of the applicant, Mr. Yadav.
The Defence’s Argument for Release
The applicant’s counsel argued that Mr. Yadav was falsely implicated in the case, having been arrested solely on the basis of suspicion following the initial complaint against an unknown person. The defence emphasized that Mr. Yadav had no connection to the crime. Crucially, the argument for bail hinged on the status of the investigation. The counsel informed the Court that the investigation had been concluded and the charge-sheet had already been filed in the matter. Therefore, the physical custody and continued incarceration of the applicant were deemed unnecessary and not required for any further investigative purpose. Based on these points, the defence pressed the Court to release Mr. Yadav on bail.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Examination of Evidence
In their written reply (Exh. 2), the prosecution strongly resisted the application, citing several grounds. The primary concerns included the assertion that the applicant does not reside in Mumbai, which raised an apprehension of abscondance. Furthermore, the prosecution expressed concern that the applicant might commit similar offences, tamper with evidence, or threaten the prosecution witnesses, highlighting the serious nature of the robbery charge.
Upon reviewing the submissions, the Court acknowledged the gravity of the Mangalsutra snatching indictment. The Judge noted the crucial steps taken by the police to identify the accused after the initial complaint against an unknown person. The investigating officer’s work included scrutinizing CCTV footage of the relevant area and cross-checking the location of the applicant, which was found to correspond with the spot of the crime, ultimately leading to Mr. Yadav’s arrest.
Rationale for Granting Bail
Despite the prosecution’s objections, the Court carefully considered two critical factors. First, the Ld. Prosecutor “fairly stated” that recovery in the case had already been effected by the respondent agency’s sleuths. Second, the charge-sheet had been filed, confirming that the custodial investigation was complete. The Court found that the prosecution had not presented any evidence of an “abysmal track record” (a history of serious or numerous prior offences) to the applicant’s discredit.
In light of the fact that the investigation was completed and key recoveries were made, the Court concluded that the prosecution’s general apprehensions regarding abscondance and witness tampering could be adequately addressed by imposing “stringent conditions” on the applicant, including mandatory reporting to the police. The Judge ultimately held that the application deserved consideration and proceeded to pass the release order.
The Court’s Final Order and Conditions
The Court formally allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1062/2024. The applicant, Abhishek Prabhashankar Yadav, was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P. R.) Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
The stringent conditions imposed on the accused include:
- Mandatory Police Attendance: The applicant is required to attend the RAK Marg Police Station on every Tuesday and Friday between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until further order of the Court.
- No Tampering/Threat: The accused must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
- Surrender of Passport: The applicant must surrender his passport, if he possesses one, to the investigating officer, or furnish an affidavit stating he does not have one.
- No Travel Abroad: The applicant shall not leave India without the permission of the Court.
- Compliance: Any breach of these conditions will result in the cancellation of bail forthwith.