The Court of City Civil and Sessions at Greater Bombay has granted regular bail to Joey Harison Joseph (20), one of the three accused in a significant robbery case involving gold bangles worth ₹9,00,000/-. The order, delivered by Shri N. P. Tribhuwan, Additional Sessions Judge (Court Room No. 23), on April 8, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 908 of 2024, relied primarily on the fact that the stolen articles and weapon were recovered and that two co-accused had already been released on bail. The applicant was booked under Section 392 (Robbery) read with Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) under Crime No. 111/2024 of L. T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai.

Details of the High-Value Robbery

The prosecution’s case, as outlined in the FIR, detailed a robbery targeting a gold ornaments factory delivery boy named Samood Dayem Mallik. On February 5, 2024, at approximately 5:30 p.m., the informant was transporting two gold bangles of 74 grams with diamonds, valued at ₹9,00,000/-, towards Opera House, Mumbai. Around 6:00 p.m. at Dagina Bazaar, the informant was intentionally accosted by three persons. They initiated a quarrel, abused, and then threatened him, using a knife to snatch his sack-bag containing the high-value gold. Although the informant shouted, the presence of the knife intimidated the gathering crowd, allowing the accused to flee. Crucially, the informant delayed reporting the incident, only lodging the complaint the next day after consulting his employer, Mr. Rahim Mandal.

Applicant’s Plea and Prosecution’s Objections

Mr. Yusuf Ansari, the learned Advocate for the applicant, raised several points in favor of bail. He argued that the applicant was falsely implicated on mere suspicion and pointed to a delay in lodging the FIR, suggesting that a serious incident of this nature would normally be reported immediately. The defense also highlighted that the applicant had been in judicial custody for over a month and that the offense was not punishable with life or death. Most significantly, the defense invoked the principle of parity, stating that two co-accused, Hussain Yasin Shaikh and Mustakim Salauddin Ansari, had already been released on bail by the same court on March 28, 2024, and April 4, 2024, respectively. Therefore, the present applicant was equally entitled to bail.

The learned APP, Mrs. Ranjana Budhwant, opposed the application. The prosecution’s reply (Exh. 3) detailed the progress of the investigation, noting that co-accused Mustaqeem had provided a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to the recovery of the two gold bangles and the knife used in the commission of the crime. They confirmed that the applicant, Joy Harison Joseph, who was already in jail for another crime (No. 251/2024), was formally taken into custody for the present crime on February 22, 2024. The prosecution maintained that if released, the accused could threaten witnesses, commit similar offenses, or abscond.

The Court’s Reasoning and Order for Release

Taking into consideration the totality of the facts, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of granting bail. The decisive factors were rooted in the status of the investigation and the judicial precedent set by the co-accused:

1. Completed Investigation & Recovery: The Court noted that the Investigating Officer had successfully recovered the robbery articles (the gold bangles) and the weapon (knife). It concluded that “most of the investigation is completed” and that the recovery part was effectively over.
2. Principle of Parity: The Court implicitly acknowledged the defense’s argument by recognizing that the two co-accused, implicated in the same robbery under the same section and common intention, had already been granted bail. This parity was a compelling factor for releasing the applicant.
3. No Habitual Offender Status: The prosecution failed to provide specific details proving that the accused was a “habitual offender”, allowing the Court to overlook the general apprehension raised by the APP.

The Judge concluded that considering the facts, the nature of the offense, the completed investigation, and the punishment provided, it was “desirable to release accused/applicant on bail.”

Imposed Conditions for Bail

The Criminal Bail Application No. 908 of 2024 was allowed. Joey Harison Joseph was released on bail subject to executing a Personal Bond for ₹25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. Key conditions imposed included:

• Reporting: The applicant must remain present at L. T. Marg Police Station on every alternate Thursday between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for a period of three months or until the filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.
• Non-Tampering: The applicant shall not tamper with any prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
• Cooperation: The applicant must co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.
• Address Details: The applicant must furnish his detailed address and mobile number to the investigating officer and the concerned court, and report any changes.