The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge V. M. Sundale, delivered an order on April 16, 2024, allowing the bail application in Criminal Bail Application No. 919 of 2024 (Rehmatullah Mohd. Shafik Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra). The applicant was accused in Crime No. 110/2024 registered with Mulund Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 454 (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offense punishable with imprisonment), 457 (Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offense punishable with imprisonment), and 380 (Theft in dwelling house, etc.) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision hinged on the completion of the investigation and the recovery of stolen goods, overriding the prosecution’s concerns about the applicant’s criminal history and the risk of absconding. This ruling provides a pertinent case study for analyzing the judicial balancing act between an accused’s right to liberty and their past criminal record in bail jurisprudence blogs.
The Allegations and Prosecution’s Opposition
The prosecution alleged that the applicant, Rehmatullah Mohd. Shafik Shaikh, along with a co-accused, committed lurking house trespass by night and stole cash and gold ornaments worth ₹1,30,000/- from the informant. The investigating officer, through learned A.P.P. Ms. Ratnavali Patil, strongly opposed the application. The opposition was primarily based on three factors: first, the seriousness of the offense; second, the fact that four similar offenses were already registered against the applicant at Tilak Nagar and Shivaji Nagar Police Stations; and third, the contention that the applicant had “no permanent residence” and was likely to commit similar offenses or flee from justice.
The Defense’s Argument and Judicial Scrutiny of the Facts
The defense, led by learned advocate Shri Zoheb Shaikh, countered the lack of permanent address claim by asserting the applicant’s fixed address at 1st Lane, Road No. 5, Near Masjid, Shivaji Nagar, Mumbai, and expressing willingness to provide proof. More importantly, the defense highlighted the procedural facts: the applicant was arrested on March 18, 2024, and had spent time in both police and judicial custody. Crucially, the defense pointed out that the co-accused had already been released on bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, and the investigation was “almost completed.”
The Court meticulously reviewed the record and noted a pivotal fact: “except cash amount all other gold ornaments are recovered.” The recovery of the stolen property significantly reduced the need for the applicant’s continued custodial interrogation. The Court recognized that the investigation’s remaining part, if any, did not necessitate the applicant’s detention.
The Court’s Rationale: Liberty Over Criminal Antecedents
In its final reasoning, the Sessions Court addressed the central contention regarding the applicant’s criminal history. While acknowledging that “similar four offences are registered against the applicant,” the Court held that “merely on that ground it will not be proper to deny bail to the applicant in this crime.” This affirms the legal principle that while prior offenses are a consideration, they cannot be the sole basis for denying bail, especially when the investigation in the current case is complete.
The Court emphasized the nature of the offenses, noting that the charges were “not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.” The judge found “no extra ordinary circumstances to keep the applicant behind bar for indefinite period.” Ultimately, the Court determined that the investigating officer’s legitimate apprehensions could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions on the applicant’s release.
Conditional Release and Judicial Oversight
The Court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 919 of 2024, ordering the applicant’s release on executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹25,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount. To ensure immediate release, a provisional cash bail in the like amount was allowed for four weeks. The imposed conditions reflect the Court’s effort to mitigate the risk factors raised by the prosecution:
- The applicant must provide his and his surety’s mobile numbers, email addresses, and residential documents.
- He must not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.
- He is prohibited from leaving India without the Court’s prior permission.
- He is directed to attend the Mulund Police Station once a week (every Monday between 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) until the charge-sheet is filed to ensure cooperation with the ongoing investigation.
The order concluded with a clear warning that any breach of these conditions would result in the cancellation of bail, demonstrating a balance between safeguarding the accused’s liberty and protecting the judicial process.