The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, in a nuanced judgment dated February 29, 2024, granted regular bail to Mujibur Rehman Aminullah Khan, also known by his aliases Raju Pulsar and Raju Topiwala, in connection with a robbery case. The order, officially Criminal Bail Application No. 479 of 2024, represents a critical judicial assessment where the completion of the investigation and the lack of concrete recovery directly linkable to the crime were weighed against the applicant’s extensive criminal history. The decision, delivered by HH The Addl. Sessions Judge Shri. V. M. Sundale, provides important jurisprudence on how courts approach bail applications for repeat offenders once the charge-sheet has been filed, emphasizing that detention cannot be indefinite merely based on past conduct.

The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence of Dacoity (Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code), registered under C.R. No. 283/2023 at Navghar Police Station, Mumbai. The core allegation was that the applicant and co-accused forcibly robbed the informant on November 15, 2023, by taking his gold chain, watch, and wallet. The seriousness of the offence—a group robbery—was a primary factor considered by the Court.

Prosecution Opposition and Key Defence Points

The prosecution, represented by the learned APP Ms. Ratnavali Patil, vehemently opposed the application. In their reply, the investigating officer highlighted the serious nature of the offence and, more significantly, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, stating that eight offences were registered against him in different police stations. The prosecution also raised the standard concerns: the possibility of the applicant committing similar offences, pressurizing prosecution witnesses, and fleeing away from justice, especially noting that he frequently changes his residence.

The defence, led by advocate Shri Ashok Vardhan Purohit, argued for liberty, focusing on the current status of the investigation. While the applicant was identified through the course of the investigation (as his name was not in the original FIR, which was registered against unknown persons), the crucial facts presented to the Court were:

1. Investigation is completed and the charge-sheet is filed.
2. The investigating officer only recovered Rs. 5,000/- from one Minas Nisar Khan, the wife of a co-accused.
3. The prosecution failed to place any proof on record to show that the recovered amount of Rs. 5,000/- was the sale proceed of the informant’s stolen gold chain.

The Court’s Reasoning for Granting Bail

After carefully reviewing the record, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the crime and the applicant’s significant history of eight registered offences. However, the Additional Sessions Judge ultimately concluded that the factors supporting the grant of bail outweighed the general apprehension arising from the past record.

The pivotal points in the Court’s reasoning were:

• Completion of Investigation: The Court noted that the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet had been filed. This fact substantially mitigated the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or impeding the investigation, as the documentary evidence was already secured.
• Lack of Direct Recovery: The Court was unconvinced by the prosecution’s claim of recovery, pointing out the failure to link the recovered Rs. 5,000/- to the stolen gold chain. This weakened the prosecution’s immediate case against the applicant in terms of possession of stolen property.
• Duration of Detention: The Court emphasized the principle against indefinite detention, stating, “it will not proper to keep the applicant behind bar for indefinite period” merely on the ground of criminal antecedents when the trial is yet to commence.

The Court ultimately held that the apprehensions raised by the investigating officer could be adequately addressed by imposing “certain stern conditions.” The bail application was thus allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance Bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount. Strict conditions were imposed, including an explicit prohibition against making any inducement, threat, or pressure on any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and a restriction on leaving India without prior court permission. This order serves as a reminder that while criminal history is a factor, it is not an absolute bar to bail, especially after the police investigation is over.