In a crucial decision emphasizing the fundamental right to personal liberty, the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay granted bail to Swapan Gopal Santra, the applicant in Bail Application No. 05 of 2023. The order, pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge M.S. Kulkarni on January 17, 2023, addressed serious charges of Theft by Clerk or Servant (Section 381 IPC) and Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property (Section 411 IPC), registered under C.R. No. I-1056 of 2022 at N. M. Joshi Marg Police Station. Despite the prosecution’s resistance based on the non-recovery of a significant quantity of gold, the court applied the principle that “bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception,” ultimately concluding that the applicant’s continued detention was unwarranted.
The Allegations and Extent of the Theft
The case originated from an FIR lodged by Chiraj Nanji Sangoi, a manufacturer of gold ornaments. The applicant, Swapan Gopal Santra, was employed as an office boy in the complainant’s business premises. Suspicion arose when the complainant noticed the theft of gold-mixed dust, a byproduct crucial for gold manufacturing. On December 19, 2022, the applicant was allegedly found with a bag containing approximately 9 kg of gold-mixed dust. The initial FIR conservatively estimated the stolen gold to be around 100 grams, derived from the combined dust found with the accused (estimated 40 grams) and the historical losses (estimated 60 grams).
However, during the subsequent investigation, the scope of the alleged crime expanded significantly. The police claimed the applicant had stolen a total of 400 grams of gold. Based on the applicant’s disclosure statements, the investigating officer recovered 10 grams of gold ingot from one Hasib Shaikh and another 7 grams of gold ingot from Abhijit Mevalal Gupta, with whom the applicant allegedly sold the stolen gold. The prosecution vehemently opposed bail, arguing that 231 grams of gold was yet to be recovered from the applicant, and warned that his release would lead to the pressurizing of witnesses and a risk of absconding or committing similar offenses.
Court’s Rejection of Non-Recovery as a Sole Ground for Denial
The defense counsel, Ld. Advocate Mr. Sushant Babur, argued that the applicant was falsely implicated and that despite being in police custody for a considerable period, “nothing has been recovered from him personally.” He highlighted that the investigation was essentially over, and the applicant, a permanent resident of Kalyan, was ready to abide by any conditions.
The court, after hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the record, acknowledged that the applicant had been in custody for nearly a month and a half. While noting the recovery from two goldsmiths based on the disclosure statement, the judge placed significant emphasis on the fact that “nothing has been recovered from him personally.” The court decisively addressed the prosecution’s main point of opposition—the non-recovery of the remaining 231 grams of gold—stating that “Only on the ground that remaining gold yet to be recovered, his liberty cannot be curtailed.”
Upholding the Constitutional Principle of Personal Liberty
In its reasoning, the court heavily relied upon the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012 CRI.L.J. 702). The judge quoted extensively from paragraphs 14, 15, and 16 of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which firmly established that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial, not to be punitive or preventative. The court reaffirmed the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence: “Every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.”
By applying the Supreme Court’s direction that refusal of bail should be restricted to extraordinary circumstances, such as a strong likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses or fleeing justice, the Sessions Court found no compelling reason to keep the applicant incarcerated. The court noted the uncertainty surrounding the commencement and conclusion of the trial, asserting that indefinite detention was not permissible, especially where the investigation was “almost over.”
Conditional Release and Surety Requirements
Concluding that imposing stringent conditions would adequately serve the ends of justice, the court granted bail to Swapan Gopal Santra. He was ordered to be released upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond and Surety Bond (SB) of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties.
To facilitate immediate release, the court permitted a provisional cash security of Rs. 30,000/-, which would remain in force for two months, allowing the applicant time to arrange for the formal surety. Furthermore, the court imposed necessary safeguards, directing the applicant not to tamper with evidence, not to pressurize the prosecution witness and the first informant till the conclusion of the case, and not to flee from justice. This meticulously reasoned order serves as a testament to the enduring importance of the bail, not jail maxim in the Indian justice system.