B.A.61/2024
..1..

MHCC020003602024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2024
IN
C.R.NO.987 OF 2023
Radhakrishna Elumalai Harijan
S/o Elumalai Harijan
Age-57 years, Occu-Job,
Residing at Room no.684,
Mother Taresa Chawl
Mariaman Mandir, Gaodevi
Santacruz, Mumbai – 400 055
Presently in Arthar Road Jail
…Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
In the instance of Vakola
Police Station
CORAM:
…Respondent
HH THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI. V. M. SUNDALE
(Court Room No.27)
DATE : 20th January 2024
Shri Rajendra Mishra, learned advocate for Applicant
Ms. Ratnavali Patil, learned APP for State/Respondent
Shri Himanshu Singh, learned advocate for Intervener
B.A.61/2024
..2..

ORDER
01.

The applicant Radhakrishna Elumalai Harijan has filed this
application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for regular
bail in connection with Crime No.987/2023 registered in Vakola, Police
Station, Mumbai, for the offence under Section 307, 504 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that the applicant and co-accused
caused serious injuries to one Rajeshwari and her daughters by means
of knife and attempted to commit their murder.

02.

The investigating officer through learned APP filed reply
(Exh.02) and strongly opposed the application. It is contended that the
offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is serious and
investigation is at primary stage. It is further contended that in the
course of investigation it is transpired that the applicant is main accused
and weapon of offence is seized at his instance. The applicant is
habitual offender and similar offence vide Crime no.276/2021
registered in Vakola Police Station, Mumbai. The statement of victims
yet to be recorded and test identification parade is to be conducted.
According to investigating officer in such circumstances, if the applicant
released on bail, there is possibility of pressurizing the victims,
hampering the investigation and fleeing away of justice. Ultimately, the
investigating officer prayed to reject the application.
03.

The victim viz., Mrs. Rajeshwari Harijan appeared through
advocate as an intervener and opposed the application on the similar
grounds which are raised by the investigating officer in his reply.
04.

Heard
Shri
Rajendra
Mishra,
learned
advocate
for
applicant, Ms. Ratnavali Patil, learned APP for prosecution and Shri
B.A.61/2024
..3..

Himanshu Singh, learned advocate for Intervener.
05.

I have carefully gone through record with reference to
submission of both the sides. The name and role of the applicant is
specifically mentioned in the First Information Report. It is alleged that
on 12/11/2023 about 10.30 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. the applicant and other
two unknown person entered the house of one Rajeshwari and stabbed
her by means of knife. It is further alleged that the applicant and coaccused again stabbed two minor daughters of Rajeshwari by means of
knife and caused serious injuries to them. It is alleged that Rajeshwari
has sustained serious injury on her neck and stomach. In the same
manner, the minor daughters of Rajeshwari sustained stabbed injury on
their nose and stomach. The investigating officer personally appeared
before the Court and submitted that the applicant is main feliciter and
in the course of investigation weapon of offence is seized from his
possession. The offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is
serious and punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for
10 years. The investigation is at primary stage. It is further seen that
after registration of the present offence, mother of the applicant again
threatened to informant and her daughters. Both victims are minor the
statements of injured witnesses under Section 164 of Code of Criminal
Procedure are yet to be recorded. In the same manner, test
identification parade of the applicant and other co-accused yet to be
conducted. The apprehension placed on record by the investigating
officer regarding pressurizing the prosecution witnesses and committing
similar offence are well founded. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, the applicant is not entitled to release on bail particularly at this
stage. Hence, the following order is passed.

B.A.61/2024
..4..

ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.61 of 2024 is rejected.

2.

Thus, Criminal Bail Application No.61 of 2024 stands disposed
of.

20/01/2024
Dictated on
: 20/01/2024
Transcribed on : 22/01/2024
Signed on
: 22/01/2024
(V. M. Sundale)
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai
B.A.61/2024
..5..

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
22/01/2024
5.00 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
Mrs. M.S. Putta
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
HHJ Shri V.M.Sundale (C.R.No. 27)
of
20/01/2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O.
on
22/01/2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on
22/01/2024