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 …Respondent

CORAM: 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

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 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.

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