The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai has granted regular bail to three young men—Kartik Subberaylum Naidu (20), Sohil Anil Dimble (18), and Bhavesh Pravin Walsoor (19)—who were arrested in connection with a robbery involving the display of a weapon. H.H. Additional Sessions Judge A. A. Kulkarni (C.R. No. 22), in an order dated May 13, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1211 of 2024, ruled that since the alleged weapon (knife) and the motorcycle used in the crime had already been seized, the “further detention of applicants” was unnecessary. The accused were charged under Section 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 504, 506(2) read with 34 of the IPC, along with relevant sections of the Maharashtra Police Act, registered under C.R. No. 122/2024 at Govandi Police Station.

The Allegations: Highway Robbery at Knifepoint

The case stems from an incident that occurred late at night on April 26, 2024, at approximately 11:55 p.m. The informant, a tanker driver, along with his cleaner, was driving when he stopped at a red signal. When the signal turned green, three unknown persons on a bike intentionally stopped nearby, forcing the tanker to halt. The assailants then confronted the informant, demanding his mobile phone and cash. The gravity of the threat escalated when one of the persons allegedly pulled out a knife, threatening to harm the informant if he didn’t comply, while the third person reportedly threatened to “finish him.” The informant managed to escape from the left side of the tanker and reach the Govandi Police Station to lodge the complaint.

Defense Argument: Custodial Interrogation Not Required

The applicants’ legal counsel, Mr. K. V. Khithani, argued for bail on the grounds that the accused were falsely implicated and that nothing further was to be seized at their instance. The defense stressed that the applicants were permanent residents of Mumbai, were willing to cooperate with the police, and there was no continuing need for custodial interrogation.

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, strongly opposed the application. They highlighted the serious nature of the offense—a robbery committed with the show of a deadly weapon (Section 397 IPC)—and raised the possibility of the applicants tampering with prosecution evidence. Furthermore, they pointed out that two other criminal cases were already registered against accused No. 2, Sohil Anil Dimble, at RCF police station, suggesting a potential risk of recidivism.

Judicial Rationale: End of Investigative Utility

The Court carefully considered the submissions and the evidence gathered by the police. The Judge acknowledged the serious allegations, particularly the use of a knife during the commission of the robbery. However, the Court focused on the status of the investigation, noting that the “alleged weapon and active motor cycle are seized during investigation.”

This fact proved decisive. In a case where the primary objects of the crime—the instrument of threat (knife) and the means of escape (motorcycle)—had been successfully recovered, the Court concluded that “there is no need to further detention of applicants.” While the existence of prior crimes against one co-accused was noted, the Court determined that the apprehension of tampering could be mitigated through stringent conditions, making the denial of bail unwarranted when the investigative utility of custody had diminished. The Court thus favored the principle of liberty over the prosecution’s general fears.

Bail Granted with Strict Conditions

The Criminal Bail Application No. 1211 of 2024 was allowed. All three applicants—Kartik Subberaylum Naidu, Sohil Anil Dimble, and Bhavesh Pravin Walsoor—were granted bail subject to the following key conditions:

• Bail Bond: Each applicant must furnish a P.R. & S.B. of ₹25,000/- along with one or more sureties in the like amount.
• Provisional Cash Bail: Provisional cash bail was allowed for eight weeks, providing the applicants time to arrange the sureties.
• Cooperation: Applicants must attend Govandi Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer on notice.
• Non-Tampering: They must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• Travel Restriction: The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

This order demonstrates the Mumbai Sessions Court’s balanced approach, confirming that even in serious cases involving deadly weapons, bail is warranted once physical evidence is secured and the continuation of custody serves no further investigative purpose.