B.A.1593/2022
..1..
Order
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1593 OF 2022
( CNR NO.: MHCC020086042022 )
1] Deepak@Nepali Bhagu Kesari
Age: 21 years, Occ: Service
R/o: Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar.
Galli No.2, Mankhurd Mumbai 43
2] Chetan Raju Singh
Age20 Yrs. OccDriver
R/o: Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar.
Galli No.2, Mankhurd, Mumbai 43 …Applicants/Accused.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra.
( At the instance of Mankhurd P.Stn.
Vide C.R. No. 587/2022)
…Respondents/State.
Appearance:
Mr. Rajesh S. Jaiswar Advocate for the Applicants/Accused.
Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the State/respondent.
CORAM : S.M. MENJOGE, THE ADDL.
JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 14/07/2022.
ORDER
1. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for bail by
applicants/accused 1]Deepak@Nepali Bhagu Kesari 2] Chetan Raju
Singh, in crime No. 587/2022 under section 323,324,326,504,506 r/w
34 of IPC, registered at police station, Mankhurd, Mumbai.
B.A.1593/2022
..2..
Order
Facts, in brief, are as under :
2.
That, the complainant Prathmesh Chavan lodged report that on
16.6.2022 at about 7.45 pm, he and his two friend Akshay Mirgule and
Soham Pawar were going to their houses from Mankhurd Railway
Station. Akhay and Soham wanted to urinate and hence, they went to
public toilet but, accused Deepak asked them not to go there and started
abusing them. Chetan and Babu came there and started beating Akshay
and Soham. When complainant tried to save them, accused also beaten
him. Thereafter, at 8 pm, accused Deepak, Babu and Chetan chased the
complainant and his two friends and Chetan assaulted complainant by
iron rod and caused injury to his head. Accused Deepak dealt blow of
iron rod on the head of Bhushan Das. Having seen that complainant and
Bhushan sustained injuries, all the accused left the spot.
Based on these allegations offence came to be registered against the
accused.
3.
My.Rajesh S. Jaiswar Advocate for applicants/accused has
submitted that applicant are falsely implicated in this case. No prima
facie case is made out against the applicants. No purpose would be
served by keeping the applicants behind the bar. Hence, he prayed to
release the applicants/accused on bail.
4.
Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the State has submitted that offence
is serious and the chargesheet is not filed. Therefore, if the accused are
released on bail they may pressurize the prosecution witnesses. Hence,
he prayed to reject the application.
5.
I perused case diary and heard the advocate for the applicant and
B.A.1593/2022
..3..
Order
A.P.P. for the State. I have gone through the Law laid down in respect
of grant or refusal of bail, in following cases by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court :
1]
2]
3]
4]
Sanjay Chandra Vs C.B.I., 2011 (13) SCALE 107,
(2012) 1 SCC 40;
Moti Ram Vs State of M.P., MANU/SC/0132/1978: (1978) 4
SCC 47;
Babu Singh Vs State of U.P., (1978)1 SCC 579;
Vaman Narain Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan,
MANU/SC/8394/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 281;
5]
Siddharam Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/
1021/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 694,
6]
VivekKumarVs State of U. P., (2000) 9 SCC 443;
7]
Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280;
8]
State of U.P. Vs Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21;
9]
Prahlad Singh Bhati .Vs. NCT, Delhi (2001)4 SCC 280
10]
Gurcharan Singh .Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978)1 SCC118.
11]
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar .Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528
12]
Ram Govind Upadhyay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002)3 SCC 598
13]
Puran .Vs. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338.
14] Neeru Yadav .Vs. State of UP,AIR 2015 SC 3703
15] Sharad Kumar..Vs…C.B.I, MANU/DE/2374/2011
17] Bhadresh .Vs. state of Bihar , (2016)1SCC 152
18] Bharat Choudhary .Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 8 SCC 77
19] Munish Bhasin .Vs. State (NCT), (2009)4 SCC 45
20] Niranjan Singh .vs. Prabhakar Kharote AIR 1980 SC 785,
21] State of M.P. .Vs. RamKishna Balothia AIR 1995 SC 1198
22]
Pokar Ram .Vs. State of Raj.AIR 1985 SC 969,
B.A.1593/2022
..4..
Order
23]
Samunder Singh .Vs. State of Raj. AIR 1987 SC 737
24]
Ravindra Saxena .Vs. State of Raj. (2010)1 SCC 684
25]
Pravinbhai Patel .Vs. State of Gujarat (2010)7 SCC 598
26]
Ram Govind Upadhay .Vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598,
27]
State of Mah. .Vs. Anand Dighe AIR 1990 SC 625,
28]
Anil Kumar Tulsiyani .Vs. State of U.P. (2006)9 SCC 425)
and considered following factors while deciding this bail application :
(i)
Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe
that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii)
Nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii)
(iv)
Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)
Character, Behaviour, Means, Position and Standing of the
accused;
(vi)
Likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with
and
(viii) Danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
6.
In the light of law laid down in above cases, I perused the case
diary. On perusal of the same, it is found that present applicants have
assaulted complainant Prathmesh and his friend Bhushan Das by iron
rods causing bleeding injuries to their heads. Iron rod is recovered from
the applicants. Merely because injured were not admitted in the hospital
is no ground for bail. Applicants/ accused picked the quarrel twice on
the same day and they followed the complainant and his friends with
B.A.1593/2022
..5..
Order
iron rod i.e having made preparation to cause injuries to them. Offence
is of serious nature and investigation is going on. Hence, if accused are
released on bail at this stage, there is every possibility of repetition of
similar kind of offence.
Citation relied by applicants in case of
Bhausaheb Dhavare vs State of Maharashtra , 2001(3) Crimes 410
(SC) is not applicable in this case, for the reason that in that case
accused was in jail since 8 months. In present case even one month is
not completed from the date of offence and investigation is not
completed and chargesheet is not filed. During the course of argument,
applicants submitted this Court has granted bail to coaccused Babu.
However, ground of parity is not applicable to these applicants as role of
coaccused Babu and present two applicants is different. Babu had not
used any weapon. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
Bail Application No. 1593/2022 is hereby rejected and
disposed of accordingly.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 14.07.2022.
: 14.07.2022.
: 14.07.2022.
Digitally signed
by SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO
SHASHANK
MANOHARRAO MENJOGE
MENJOGE
Date:
2022.07.14
17:12:39 +0530
( S.M. MENJOGE )
Addl. Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
B.A.1593/2022
..6..
Order
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
14.07.2022.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
Mrs. S.S.Sawant
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
S.M. MENJOGE, Addl. Judge.,City Civil
& Sessions Court, (C.R.No.17).
Date of pronouncement of /Order 14.07.2022.
Order signed by P.O. on
14.07.2022.
order uploaded on
14.07.2022.