Allowed

Dhimant Chotalal Chouhan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Jul 2021BA/198/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC pardoned in a theft case. The judgment granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, noting that the only evidence linking him was a recovery of stolen items from his scooter, which was highly doubtful given police possession of keys and control by a co-accused held on bail. The applicant, with no criminal record, was released on a bond of

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties; accused to report to police station monthly and not tamper with evidence.

Dhimant Chotalal Chouhan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

24.2 BA 198-2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2021

¶5

Dhimant Chotalal Chouhan

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

.... Respondent

¶10

Mr. Satyaram R. Gaud, for the Applicant. Mr. A. A. Palkar, APP for State- Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 16^th JULY, 2021 (Through Video Conferencing)

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. The applicant is seeking bail in connection with

¶14

C.R.No.251/2020 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Mumbai

¶15

on 22^nd April 2020 by one Raj Kumar Luthra under Sections 454, 457, 380, 109, 120(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

¶16

Heard Mr. Satyaram R. Gaud, learned Counsel for the

¶17

applicant and Mr. A.A. Palkar, learned APP for the State.

¶18

Manjusha

¶19

2 / 6 24.2 BA 198-2021.odt

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the informant was having his business at Gala No.110 at Niraj Industrial Estate, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The Head Office of the company is at New Delhi. The informant’s company was in the business of casting, filing, polishing and Wax setting of diamonds and jewellery. The workers from the company were residing at Virar, Nalasopara, Goregaon and Andheri, etc. Due to spread of pandemic, the workers had requested for two days holiday. On 20^th March 2020 and 21^st March 2020 the workers were given holidays. The premises were closed on 19^th March 2020 at about 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, lock down was imposed from 22^nd March 2020. On 22^nd April 2020 the first informant visited his premises in Gala No.110. He found that the articles were scattered on the floor. The DVR of CCTV camera was missing. The gold powder weighing about 44O grams from grinding machine valued at about Rs.15 Lakh was missing. Gold ornaments, diamonds, diamond jewellery were also missing. The safe vault was broken open by using a cutter. On this basis, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons.

¶21

The informant’s supplementary statement was recorded

¶22

3 / 6 24.2 BA 198-2021.odt

¶23

on 24^th April 2020. In that statement, he mentioned that the cement roof was broken by the thieves for making entry into the gala. He gave further description of missing articles. According to him, the stolen property was worth Rs.7,09,48,992/- consisting of loose diamonds, diamond studded jewellery and gold, apart from other articles.

¶24

Different accused were arrested. The present applicant Dhimant Chouhan was arrested on 28^th April 2020. The investigation was carried out and the charge sheet is filed. Since his arrest, the applicant is in custody.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused Irfan Mulani, Santosh Rathod and Shankar Yesu who were similarly placed are granted bail by this Court (CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) by orders dated 12^th March 2021 and 25^th March 2021 passed in Criminal Bail Application Nos.1332/2021, 207/2021 and No.2055/2021. He submitted that the applicant’s role is lesser. The property recovered at the instance of released co-accused Irfan is much more than the property recovered at the

¶26

4 / 6 24.2 BA 198-2021.odt

¶27

instance of the present applicant. He further submitted that apart from the ground of parity, the applicant has good case on merits that there is nothing to show that the applicant had taken part in the robbery.

¶28

Learned APP, opposed this application. He submitted that the offence is serious and there is recovery of ornaments at the applicant’s instance.

¶29

I have considered these submissions.

¶30

The only evidence against the present applicant is about the recovery of ornaments worth Rs.7,27,854/-. This recovery was effected at his instance from dickey of a scooty. Interestingly, the police were already having possession of the keys of that dickey. The police had seized that key from the co-accused Irfan when he was arrested. Therefore, the scooty was thus under Irfan’s control. It is apparent that the police were having knowledge of that particular scooty. The recovery however, is shown at the instance of the present applicant. This circumstance is therefore little doubtful, as far as the prosecution case is

¶31

5 / 6 24.2 BA 198-2021.odt

¶32

concerned. As rightly pointed out by Shri Goud, the co-accused Irfan had also given a statement pursuant to which recovery of ornaments worth Rs.14,22,845/- was effected from his own house. Therefore, that particular aspect is more incriminating than the piece of evidence against the present applicant. Since Irfan is already granted bail on the ground of parity and since the recovery at the applicant’s instance itself is little doubtful, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. He is already in custody since 28^th April 2020.

¶33

Learned APP, on instructions, states that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.

¶34

Hence, the following order.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.251/2020 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Mumbai on executing

¶37

6 / 6 24.2 BA 198-2021.odt

¶38

P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶39

(ii) The applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station on 1^st Saturday of every month between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for a period of one year from today;

¶40

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence;

¶41

(iv) The applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly unless exempted by the Court;

¶42

(v) The Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶43

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Dhimant Chotalal Chouhan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhimant Chotalal Chouhan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manisha Mahesh Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Karan Rajendra Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naseem Taswar Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Imtiyaz Faizul Rehman Shaikh @ Baaza Vs the State of Maharashtra

Swati Dhananjay Dadhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailendra Lalji Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra