The Court of Session for Greater Bombay, through an order dated March 5, 2024, granted bail to two young applicants, Mohammed Salman (Age 18) and Mohd. Tausif Khan, in a case involving allegations of robbery, assault, and wrongful confinement stemming from an incident near the Atal Setu Bridge. The bail application, Criminal Bail Application No. 519 of 2024, was heard by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, who found that continued incarceration was unwarranted given the facts and circumstances presented. The applicants were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 55/2024 registered at Sewree Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 394 (Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 395 (Dacoity), 341 (Wrongful restraint), 504 (Intentional insult), 506 (Criminal intimidation), and 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution’s case outlined that the incident occurred on February 11, 2023, when the complainant and his brother stopped their car at the Atal Setu Bridge to take a selfie. An altercation began when the accused allegedly objected to the complainants’ “shouting” and enjoyment, leading to a verbal exchange. Following this, the accused reportedly pursued the complainant’s car, stopped it, and proceeded to assault the informant and his brother. The assault was reported to be severe, with one of the accused allegedly using an iron rod to attack the victims on the head, back, and leg. Furthermore, the accused allegedly snatched the mobile phone of the informant’s brother, Ravi Kumar, who was attempting to film the incident. The mobile cover contained Rs. 3,500/- in cash, and the accused also took the ignition key of the complainant’s car, which forms the basis of the serious charges of robbery and dacoity.

Appearing before the Court, the applicants’ advocate contended that they were innocent, falsely implicated, and had already undergone sufficient custodial interrogation since their arrest on February 20, 2024. The defense stressed that there was nothing left to be seized or recovered from the accused, making their continued detention unnecessary. They asserted that the applicants are permanent residents of their given addresses, negating the risk of fleeing from justice. Conversely, the prosecution vehemently opposed the bail plea, filing a formal reply arguing that releasing the accused posed a risk of them absconding, threatening prosecution witnesses, and tampering with evidence.

After a thorough review of the application, the prosecution’s reply, and the submitted documents, the Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne determined that the balance tipped in favor of granting bail. The Court noted that no specific role was attributed to the present accused, stating only that all accused jointly committed the crime. A crucial factor in the Court’s decision was the young age of the applicants (18 and 20 years), coupled with the fact that no criminal antecedents were reported against either of them. The Judge concluded that in light of these factors, the further incarceration of the applicants was unwarranted and that their release would not impede the investigation.

To secure their presence and ensure a smooth legal process, the Court imposed stringent bail conditions. The Criminal Bail Application No. 519 of 2024 was allowed, and Mohammed Salman and Mohd. Tausif Khan were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond (P.B.) and a surety bond (S.B.) of Rs. 20,000/- each, with one or two sureties. An allowance for provisional cash bail in the like amount was also granted, with the condition that the accused must furnish a proper surety within four weeks, failing which the cash bail would be forfeited. Key conditions mandate that the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner and must regularly attend the concerned police station on the 3rd Saturday of every month between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm until the framing of the charge. The applicants were also prohibited from leaving India without the Court’s prior permission. This order reflects the judiciary’s careful approach to balancing the severity of the alleged crime with the principles of liberty and the youth of the accused, especially when no prior criminal history is present.