Allowed

Rahul Shivaji Rai v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Apr 2013BA/490/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application and ordered the release of the applicant on bail subject to stringent conditions. The applicant was a tippet who informed other accused about a jewelry robbery. The court imposed strict supervision conditions including reporting, no travel outside Mumbai, and cooperation with the trial regarding bail cancellation on violation.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged the applicant on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount, subject to eight conditions including reporting, travel restrictions, and prohibition from i

Rahul Shivaji Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

BA-490-491-13.sxw

¶2

Dixit

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.490 OF 2013 ALONG WITH

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.491 OF 2013

¶6

Rahul Shivaji Rai ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru’ M.I.D.C. Police Station, Andheri (East), Mumbai ... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sudhir Halli for the Applicant.

¶8

Mrs. S.V. Sonawane, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2013.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The Applicant is an Accused in C.R. Nos.549 of 2012 and 471 of 2012. The Applicant has been named as an Accused. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 395 and 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the Original Complainant that it is the Applicant who tipped of the other Accused with regard to the parcels which were being transported and that is how he facilitated in commission of the crime. At knife point, the motor cycles were stopped and the jewellery articles worth Rs.1 crore were looted.

¶13

The role of the Applicant is that he has tipped of the other Accused about handing over the jewellery articles and their transportation by the Original Complainant.

¶14

Reliance is placed upon an order dated 21^st March, 2013 in Criminal Bail Application No.314 of 2013 [Yogendra Ramakant Singh @ Thakur Vs. The

¶15

1/4

¶16

BA-490-491-13.sxw

¶17

State of Maharashtra]. It is stated that this case is of a co-accused in the same crime. On the ground of parity, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

The learned A.P.P. submits that the case of the Applicant is some what distinct because he is the one who can be termed as a “master mind”. Without his tipping of and information, the Accused could not have dared to commit a crime. In such circumstances, the Applicant is a part of the group and enlarging him on bail would endanger the life and security of others and residing in the vicinity. For all these reasons, the Applicant, who was posted on the responsible post of a Watchman, ought not to have indulged in all this.

¶19

Having perused this Criminal Bail Application and the annexures thereto, including the statement of the Original Complainant, what is apparent to me is that the role of the Applicant therein is of tipping of and informing the other Accused, who came at the site, armed with knife and looted the Original Complainant. In such circumstances, by imposing appropriate conditions and having found that the Applicant has not been a party to the actual act of looting the Original Complainant and taking away the Diamond articles forcibly, the following order will serve the ends of justice :

¶20

“O R D E R”

¶21

(i) The Applicant, who is Accused in C.R. Nos.549 of 2012 and 471 of 2012 registered with the M.I.D.C. Police Station, Andheri (East), Mumbai, is enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount.

¶22

(ii) The Applicant shall report to the Police Station nearest to his place of residence once in fifteen days till the trial is concluded.

¶23

2/4

¶24

BA-490-491-13.sxw

¶25

(iii) The Applicant shall not be entitled to avail of any benefits of this order unless he informs the Investigating Officer the complete residential address where he will be residing, after he being released, including furnishing proof in the form of official documents. The Applicant shall not change his residential address without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer during the course of trial.

¶26

(iv) The Applicant shall deposit his Passport, if any, with the Trial Court. The Applicant shall not leave Mumbai without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶27

(v) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement and/or influence and/or pressurize or cause any threat or give any promise to anybody acquainted with the facts of accusations made against the Applicants so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts either to the Court or to the Investigating Agency or to any Police Officer.

¶28

(vi) The Applicant shall not tamper, in any manner whatsoever, with the prosecution evidence whatever.

¶29

(vii) The Applicant shall not commit similar or any other offence while on bail.

¶30

(viii) The Applicant shall co-operate with the learned Trial Judge in expeditious disposal of the case.

¶31

(ix) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial.

¶32

3/4

¶33

BA-490-491-13.sxw

¶34

(x) It is made clear that any violation or breach of the conditions, which are imposed, shall entail in cancellation of bail.

¶35

Both these Criminal Bail Applications are disposed of in the above terms.

¶36

(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

¶37

4/4

Rahul Shivaji Rai v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Shivaji Rai v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Dattaram Amre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Avinash Vilas Shendge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagdish @ Surya Kaliram Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Shrinivas @ Raju Gupte Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Acb

Sudeep Kumar Ganesh Khanna Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Shivaji Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra