The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, in its order dated March 16, 2024, allowed the regular bail application of Mr. Rajkumar Mewalal Prajapati, an employee of a petrol pump implicated in a conspiracy to defraud an employer using bogus bills. The order, officially Criminal Bail Application No. 523 of 2024, presided over by Addl. Sessions Judge S.N. Patil, emphasized the fundamental principle that “bail is rule and jail is an exception” when the investigation is substantially complete, and no direct recovery has been made from the accused. This decision is noteworthy for how the court differentiated the roles of co-accused and weighed circumstantial evidence against the need for prolonged detention.
The Allegations and Legal Standpoint
The applicant, Rajkumar Mewalal Prajapati, was charged under Sections 381 (Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master), 408 (Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), 420 (Cheating), and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, registered under C.R. No. 36 of 2024 at Chembur Police Station.
The prosecution’s case, initiated by the informant, Smt. Chitra Anand Salunke, alleged that her driver, Amjad Akhtar Shaikh (co-accused), would receive every Saturday for petrol expenses. Amjad, however, would fill petrol for a lesser amount and obtain a bogus bill of a higher amount from the present applicant, Rajkumar, who was an employee at the petrol pump. Rajkumar allegedly received for providing these fraudulent bills, which allowed the driver to steal approximately lacs from the informant.
Defence Arguments and Prosecution Opposition
The applicant’s counsel, Shri Rajesh Kumar Salpuram and Shri Anurag Dubey, argued that Rajkumar was falsely implicated and that the ingredients of Sections 381 and were not attracted since he was not an employee of the informant and had no direct connection with her. They stressed that the did not name the applicant, the investigation was practically over, and nothing had been recovered from him.
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mrs. Ashwini Raykar, and the intervenor (informant) Smt. Chitra Salunkhe, strongly opposed the bail. They argued that the applicant was a deliberate offender who had admitted his participation to the police, that the investigation was not yet completed (suggesting a larger conspiracy due to different handwriting on the bills), and that releasing him would lead to the commission of similar offences, witness pressurization, and absconding.
Judicial Analysis and Rationale
Judge S.N. Patil considered the submissions and the documents on record. The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the conspiracy but focused on several legal and factual distinctions:
- Applicability of Offences: The Court found that Section 381 (Theft by a servant) was not attracted against Rajkumar Prajapati because he was an employee of the petrol pump, not a servant of the informant. This differentiation weakened the most serious servant-related charges against him.
- Investigation Status and Custody: The Court observed that despite the intervenor’s claim, the investigation was “almost completed” and that the concern document was recovered. Having already been in custody for more than days, the Court saw no need to keep the applicant behind bars, citing the legal maxim that bail is the rule.
- Lack of Recovery: The absence of any monetary or material recovery directly from the applicant further supported the view that his continued detention was unnecessary.
The Court concluded that the alleged apprehension of the prosecution—fleeing or tampering with witnesses—could be effectively curtailed by imposing stringent conditions.
Final Order and Conditions Imposed
Granting the application, the Court ordered the release of Rajkumar Mewalal Prajapati on a Personal Bond Rs.25000/- of with one or more solvent sureties of the like amount.
To ensure the integrity of the judicial process, the following key conditions were imposed:
- The applicant must not tamper with the prosecution evidence or witnesses.
- He must remain present before the Investigating Officer of Chembur Police Station once a month (on the day of each calendar month) till the filing of the charge sheet for smooth investigation.
- He shall not leave India without prior court permission.
The Court allowed a provisional cash bail of for four weeks to allow time for the arrangement of the surety, thus balancing the need for the accused’s liberty with the necessity of ensuring his presence for trial.