The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Shri S.N. Patil, granted regular bail to Shivam Rajesh Kasare in a case involving house-breaking and theft. The order, delivered on February 22, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 317 of 2024, determined that despite the serious nature of the allegations, the current evidence, specifically the absence of eye-witnesses and the limited recovery of stolen property attributed to the accused, warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in his favor. Kasare was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 31 of 2024, registered at the Chembur Police Station, for offenses punishable under Section 457 (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night) and 380 (Theft in dwelling house) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Prosecution’s Case and the Defence’s Challenge
The prosecution’s case alleged a serious crime: a robbery was committed in the informant’s house, resulting in the theft of gold and diamond ornaments and cash totaling approximately Rs. 3.90 lakhs. This substantial loss highlighted the gravity of the offenses registered against the applicant. The applicant, represented by Ld. Adv. Tanaji Pawar, sought bail, asserting that he had been falsely implicated and that his connection to the large-scale crime was tenuous. The key point of the defense was the disproportionate nature of the recovery: only Rs. 5,000/- was allegedly recovered from the applicant, a minuscule fraction of the total stolen amount. Furthermore, the defense stressed that there were no eye-witnesses to the incident, with the entire case relying solely on the informant’s statements and circumstantial evidence. Based on these submissions, the defense argued that continued custody was unnecessary.
Judicial Scrutiny and the Role of Evidence
Ld. A.P.P. Mrs. Ashwini Raykar opposed the bail application vehemently, arguing that the applicant had committed a serious crime and that his release would pose a risk of him committing similar offenses or absconding from justice. The prosecution also informed the Court that the investigation was not yet completed. However, upon scrutinizing the arguments and the available record, the Court noted that the central pillar of the defense—the lack of eye-witnesses to the actual incident—stood unchallenged. The prosecution could only rely on circumstantial evidence, particularly CCTV footage which merely showed “two unknown persons were found in suspicious condition on the date of incident.” This lack of direct evidence linking the accused unequivocally to the commission of the house-breaking or the theft of the bulk of the property was a significant factor in the Court’s deliberation.
Grounds for Granting Bail with Stringent Conditions
The Court ultimately concluded that the apprehension expressed by the prosecution—that the accused might commit similar offenses—could be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions on his bail. Considering the nature of the offense, the limited role played by the applicant as inferred by the negligible recovery, and the lack of direct testimony, the Court deemed it a “fit case in which discretion can be exercised in favour of applicant/accused.” The Court thus inclined to grant him liberty, acknowledging that pre-trial detention should not be punitive when the evidence at the initial stage is indirect or weak.
The Court allowed Bail Application No. 317 of 2024, ordering Shivam Rajesh Kasare to be released on furnishing a Personal Bond (PB) of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount. To ensure the prosecution’s interests were protected, the Court imposed multiple mandatory conditions. The applicant is strictly prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, thereby protecting the evidence. He is explicitly directed not to commit a similar offense while on bail and not to leave India without the prior permission of the Court. Furthermore, to monitor his presence and cooperation, the accused is required to attend the Chembur Police Station once in a calendar month between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM. Recognizing the immediate need for relief, the Court also allowed the applicant to be released on a provisional cash bail of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of four weeks, granting him time to arrange for the formal surety.