IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR.BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1857 OF 2022
(CNR NO. MHCC020101152022)
Akash Shakti Permal – Applicant.
Age: 21, Occupation : Unemployed
Address: Lallubhai Compound Surya
Building R.No.7, Mankhurd (W),
Mumbai-89.

… Applicant/Accused
Versus
State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Mankhurd
Police Station.)

… Respondent.

Ld. Advocate Mr. Amol Palekar for applicant/accused.
Ld.APP Mr.Ramesh Siroya for the State.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI.M.S.KULKARNI (C.R.NO.56)
DATED : 20th August, 2022
(DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT)
ORAL ORDER
1.

This bail application is in respect of C.R.No.615/2022
registered with Mankhurd Police Station dated 23.06.2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 326, 504, 506 read with Section 34
of the I.P.Code.
2.

The applicant/accused was arrested on 23.06.2022.

He
was in police custody till 27.6.2022 and since then he has been in
judicial custody.
3.

The applicant/accused moved an application before the
Metropolitan Magistrate Court 52nd, Kurla, Mumbai for bail which came
:2:
to be rejected on 7.7.2022.
4.

Meanwhile accomplice of the applicant/accused namely
Mayur Tayade and Vishal Nirmal filed application before this court for
anticipatory bail which came to be rejected.

So, they have been
arrested on 8.7.2022.
5.

The FIR discloses that on 22.6.2022 at about 12.30 p.m.

when the victim alongwith his friend Akshay Chouthmal were standing
in the lane at Lallubhai Compound, Mankhurd. The applicant/accused
alongwith his accomplices namely Mayur Tayade, Vishal Pirmal and
Arjun Gaikwad having knives in their hands came and assaulted victim
on his head and stomach. Meanwhile the applicant/accused with the
help of stick assaulted the victim and his friend Akshay Chouthmal. As
the victim sustained bleeding injuries on head and stomach, the
applicant/accused and his accomplice ran from the spot. Victim was
then taken to the Shatabdi hospital where from he was referred to the
Sion hospital.

At Sion hospital the victim was required to undergo
surgery and to have 20 stitches at the injury side.
6.

The applicant/accused has asked for bail on the grounds that he
has been falsely implicated and investigation is already over.
7.

The prosecution has objected bail on the grounds that offence is
serious; yet absconding accomplices of the applicant/accused are to be
interrogated during police custody the applicant/accused did not cooperate in investigation; if he is released on bail, he would pressurize
the first informant and victim and he may commit same offence in
:3:
future.
8.

I heard advocate Mr.Amol Palekar for applicant and
Learned APP Mr. Ramesh Siroya for the State at length.
9.

The
respected
52nd
Metropolitan
Magistrate
Court
dismissed the bail application of the applicant/accused on the ground
that investigation is still in progress and there is recovery of weapon at
the hands of the applicant/accused.

The respected Metropolitan
Magistrate passed said order on 7.7.2022. Now one month has been
passed.

Within one month the investigating officer so far as
applicant/accused is concerned should have been completed. No doubt
two absconding accomplices of the applicant/accused namely Mayur
Tayade and Vishal Parimal had filed anticipatory bail application which
came to be rejected, and on 8.7.2022 they have been arrested by the
investigating officer.
10.

Their arrest by the investigating officer cannot be taken to
say that still investigation is incomplete.
11.

So far as the applicant/accused is concerned, investigating
officer has not stated that still investigation is going on .
12.

The next fear expressed by the State is that the
applicant/accused would pressurize the first informant, victim and
witnesses and he may commit same offences in future. To safeguard
this concern stringent conditions can be put on the applicant/accused.

:4:
13.

The investigating officer has not put on record medical
certificate of the victim showing present situation of the victim.

It
appears that though the victim had sustained injury which is as per the
prosecution the serious injuries, the fact is that the victim has been
discharged from the hospital and he has been living his normal life.
14.

In the case of Hon’ble Apex in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation 2012 CRI.L.J.702 through para Nos.14,15 and
16 laid down as;
14.
In bail applications, generally, it has
been laid down from the earliest times that the
object of bail is to be secure the appearance of
the accused person at his trial by reasonable
amount of bail. The object of bail is neither
punitive nor preventative.
Deprivation of
liberty must be considered a punishment,
unless it can be required to ensure that an
accused person will stand his trial when called
upon. The courts owe more than verbal
respect to the principle that punishment begins
after conviction, and that every man is deemed
to be innocent until duly tried and duly found
guilty.
From the earliest times, it was
appreciated that detention in custody pending
completion of trial could be a cause of great
hardship.
From time to time, necessity
demands that some un-convicted persons
should be held in custody pending trial to
secure their attendance at the trial but in such
cases, ‘necessity’ is the operative test. In this
country, it would be quite contrary to the
concept of persona liberty enshrined in the
Constitution that any person should be
punished in respect of any matter, upon which,
he has not been convicted or that in any
circumstances, he should be deprived of his
liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper
:5:
with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the
most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from
the question of prevention being the object of a
refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the
fact that any imprisonment before conviction
has a substantial punitive content and it would
be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a
mark of disapproval of former conduct whether
the accused has been convicted for it or not or
to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the
purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment
as a lesson.
15.
In the instant case, as we have already
noticed that the “pointing finger of accusation”
against the appellants is ‘the seriousness of the
charge’. The offences alleged are economic
offences which has resulted in loss to the State
Exchequer. Though, they contend that there is
possibility of the appellants tampering
witnesses, they have not placed any material in
support of the allegation.
In our view,
seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of
the relevant considerations while considering
bail applications but that is not the only test or
the factor: The other factor that also requires
to be taken note of is the punishment that
could be imposed after trial and conviction,
both under the Indian Penal Code and
Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the
former is the only test, we would not be
balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather
“recalibration of the scales of justice”. The
provisions of Cr.P. C. confer discretionary
jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to
accused pending trial or in appeal against
convictions
since
the
jurisdiction
is
discretionary, it has to be exercised with great
care and caution by balancing valuable right of
liberty of an individual and the interest of the
society in general. In our view, the reasoning
adopted by the learned District Judge, which is
affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a
:6:
denial of the whole basis of our system of law
and normal rule of bail system. It transcends
respect for the requirement that a man shall be
considered innocent until he is found guilty. If
such power is recognized, then it may lead to
chaotic situation and would jeopardize the
personal liberty of an individual. This Court,
in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan
(2005) 2 SCC 42: (AIR 2005 SC 921),
observed that “ under the criminal laws of this
country, a person accused of offences which are
non-bailable, is liable to be detained in custody
during the pendency of trial unless he is
enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such
detention cannot be questioned as being
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, since
the same is same is authorized by law. But
even persons accused of non-bailable offences
are entitled to bail if the Court concerned
comes to the conclusion that the prosecution
has failed to establish a prima facie case
against him and/or if the Court is satisfied by
reasons to be recorded that in spite of the
existence of prima facie case, there is need to
release such accused on bail, where fact
situations require it to do so.
16.
This court, time and again, has stated
that bail is the rule and committal to jail an
exception. It is also observed that refusal of
bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of
the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution. In the case of State of
Rajasthan Vs. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308:
(AIR 1977 SC 2447), this Court opined:
“2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put
as bail, not jail, except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice
or thwarting the course of justice or creating
other troubles in the shape of repeating
offences or intimidating witnesses and the like,
by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on
:7:
bail from the Court. We do not intend to be
exhaustive but only illustrative.
15.

In view of the above judgmental law and facts as noted above the
applicant/accused is entitled for bail. Hence, order;
ORDER
1. Bail Application No.1857 of 2022 is allowed.
2. Applicant/Accused Akash Shakti Permal is released on bail in C.R.No.
615/2022 on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.30,000/-(Rs. Thirty Thousand)
with one or more sureties in the like amount.
3. Provisional cash security of Rs. 30,000/- is allowed which will remain
in force for two months. Meanwhile applicant/accused has to furnish
surety as directed above.
4. Applicant/accused is directed to attend Mankhurd police station on
every Tuesday and Thursday in between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. till
filing of the charge-sheet.
5. Applicant/accused shall not flee from justice.
6. Applicant/accused shall not tamper with the evidence and co-operate
with the investigating officer in investigation.
7. Applicant/accused shall not meet the victim, first informant and
witnesses for one year.
8. Bail before trail Court.
9. Bail Application No.1857/2022 stands disposed off accordingly.

Date : 20.08.2022.
Dictated on
Typed on
Draft checked on
Retyped on
Signed on
:
:
:
:
:
20.08.2022.
22.08.2022.
23.08.2022
25.08.2022
26.08.2022
(M.S.Kulkarni)
Addl.Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
For Greater Bombay
:8:
“ CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
: 26.08.2022 at 11.52 p.m.
: Mrs.Jyoti Mane
NAME OF THE JUDGE
HHJ SHRI.M.S.Kulkarni
(C.R.No.56)
Date of Pronouncement of Order
20.08.2022
Order signed by the P.O. On
26.08.2022
Order uploaded on
26.08.2022