Keeping Accused Behind Bars of No Use,” Says Judge While Releasing Woman on Rs 50,000 Bond
Mumbai, May 26, 2026 – Observing that the investigation is complete and keeping an accused behind bars for an unlimited period is of no use, the Additional Sessions Court in Vasai has granted regular bail to an accused in Crime No. 446/2025 registered at Naigaon Police Station. The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge P.S. Kale on Wednesday, allowing the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Case Background
The applicant along with co-accused individuals, was arrested on September 2, 2025, in connection with an incident involving theft and arson at a grocery shop. According to the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the informant, who runs the grocery shop, a theft was committed at his establishment, and the shop was subsequently set on fire during the incident.
The case was registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Sections 331(4), 305, 326(g), 317(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS against the Accused. These provisions deal with serious offences, though the court noted that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet had already been filed in the matter.
Arguments Presented
The applicant accused, through her learned advocate, contended that she was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the matter. The defense argued that there was no direct evidence linking her to the commission of the alleged offence. It was further submitted that the applicant had neither participated in, facilitated, nor derived any benefit from the incident. The defense emphasized that no incriminating material was found against her during the investigation, and no gold, cash, or other stolen property was recovered from her possession.
Additionally, the defense highlighted that the other co-accused in the case had already been released on bail, and the applicant’s name was not specifically mentioned in the FIR with a clear role attributed to her. Based on these grounds, the court was urged to grant bail to the applicant.
Prosecution’s Objection
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution submitted that the witnesses had recorded their statements, which clearly outlined the role of the applicant and other co-accused in the commission of the offence. It was argued that a huge amount of money and gold ornaments were involved in the offence and that these had not been recovered so far.
The prosecution further contended that the applicant accused was not being truthful and that if released on bail, she might tamper with the prosecution evidence and exert pressure on the witnesses. The seriousness of the offence was cited as a ground for denying bail.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, Additional Sessions Judge P.S. Kale observed that the investigation in the matter had been completed and the chargesheet had already been filed. The court noted that the trial would conclude in due course and that keeping the accused behind bars for an indefinite period would serve no meaningful purpose.
The court also took into consideration the fact that the other co-accused had already been granted bail. While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the judge observed that stringent conditions could be imposed to ensure the applicant’s cooperation with the trial and to prevent any tampering with evidence or witness intimidation.
Conditions of Bail
While allowing the bail application, the court imposed several stringent conditions on the applicant accused. She shall be released on executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 50,000 along with one surety of the like amount.
The conditions attached to the bail are as follows:
- The applicant accused shall attend every court date fixed by the court after the filing of the chargesheet, unless exempted.
- She shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or police.
- She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
- She shall not make contact with the informant or witnesses in any manner.
- She shall furnish her current address proof and mobile phone number while providing surety.
- She shall surrender her passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer and shall not leave India without prior permission from the concerned court.
- She shall not commit any such type of offence again.
The court also made it clear that failure to obey any of the conditions would lead to the cancellation of the bail granted to the applicant.
Directions Issued
The court directed that the bail be executed before the Trial Court. The concerned police station has been informed accordingly. Additionally, the Superintendent of the District Prison, Thane, has been directed to inform the applicant about the order via email.
Legal Significance
The order reflects the judicial principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially when the investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed. The court balanced the seriousness of the allegations with the right to liberty and the fact that other co-accused had already been released on bail.
The case now moves to trial, where the prosecution will be required to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Meanwhile, the applicant accused has been directed to strictly adhere to the conditions imposed to ensure the smooth conduct of the trial.
Appearances:-
Advocate Genevieve Lobo for the Applicant
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State
Read more:-
