Bail Application No.885/2024.
MHCC020056202024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 885 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 173 OF 2024.

Rakeshkumar Jiyalal Yadav
… Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Wadala T. T. Police Station,
Vide C.R.No. 173/2024).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Manoj R. Gowd for the applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 10TH APRIL, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant/accused Rakeshkumar
Jiyalal Yadav being accused in C.R.No.173/2024 registered with
Wadala T. T. Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.885/2024.
307, 326, 324, 323, 504, 506, 427 and read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
2.

It is stated that, as on 12.03.2024 at about 4.00 p.m. in the
evening the informant alongwith his friend Santosh Yadav consumed
liquor in a Taxi of his friend near Vidyalankar College and slept in the
said Taxi. At that time a Taxi driver acquainted with the informant
namely Zinat came there and assaulted and dashed the informant. At
that time the informant got up and it revealed to him that somebody
was taking out money from his shirt pocket. He further stated that,
the said Zinat told that, the informant’s earlier taxi fair was pending
and therefore either of them had altercations.

At that time
informant’s son came at the spot and the dispute was resolved and
either of them went to their home.
3.

At about 7.30 on the same day an individual residing in the
locality of the informant namely Rakesh Yadav came at the
informant’s place and called the informant’s son. It is alleged that,
Rakesh, Nasim, Zinat were carrying weapons alongwith the
applicant/accused.

Zinat and his colleagues hurled abuses to the
informant’s son.

Further, it is alleged that, Rakesh assaulted
informant’s son and informant’s wife was assaulted by Zinat. The
ornaments worn by the informant and his wife were also lost in the
said scuffle. Thereafter, all four of them fled from the spot and that
the informant, his son and his wife went at Sion Hospital for
treatment. Thus, offence was registered under Sections ibid.

Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.885/2024.
4.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated.

It is further stated that,
considering the factum of accusation, it categorically reveals that, the
informant on one hand states that, the applicant/accused assaulted
him with bamboo and thereafter, in furtherance of his contentions it
is stated that, the co-accused Zinat assaulted with the bamboo. Thus,
this particular aspect propels for the informant to have laid the role
of the accused person on different footings at the same stretch of
contentions. Furthermore, considering the role assigned, at its face
charges under Section 307 and 326 cannot be invoked. It is stated
that, substantial investigation has concluded, victim is discharged and
that,
applicant/accused
being
incarceration is not required.

government
servant
further
Hence, the Ld. Advocate for
applicant/accused prayed for enlarging the applicant/accused on
bail.
5.

Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2,
and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, the applicant/accused is the main assailant
and has been defined with a clear cut role by the informant. It is
stated that, the choice of the organ i.e. head by the applicant/accused
is also relevant and considering the factum of injuries, the
applicant/accused is required for further confrontation. Further, the
prosecution apprehends abscondance, tampering of evidence and
threatening to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor
prayed for rejection of application.

Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.885/2024.
6.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused and Ld.
Prosecutor for the State. Perused application and reply along with the
documents filed and relied by the parties.

7.

On meticulous examination of the application, reply and
FIR filed by the prosecution it palpably evinces to myself that, the
applicant is attributed with the role of assaulting the informant on his
head. Further, the informant has categorically alleged that, as there
was an earlier grudge, the applicant/accused had assaulted the
informant. Furthermore, applicant/accused has not denied for his
presence at the spot. Undoubtedly, as stated by the Ld. Advocate for
applicant/accused, the usage of bamboo is shown by two persons, but
that cannot be the only reason for claiming such enlargement. On
the contrary the informant categorically names the applicant/accused
to have assaulted him on his head. This ipso-facto disentitles the
applicant/accused from any such relief of enlargement on bail.

8.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

9.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments as advanced by the
Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused, he states that the co-accused has
been enlarged by this Court.

It is pertinent that, this Court has
enlarged the co-accused as no role had been assigned to him with
regard to assault the informant or his relatives except hurling abuses.
Also, that the other three accused persons are well defined with a
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.885/2024.
categoric role.

Therefore, I find no parity in the role of the co-
accused
that
with
of
the
applicant/accused.

Furthermore,
investigation pertaining to the weapons used during the commission
of crime is under progress as stated by the Ld. Prosecutor and
therefore, granting such relief will naturally derail the momentum of
investigation. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that, the
application deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :–
ORDER
Bail Application No.885/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 10.04.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.04.10
17:45:17 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 10.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 10.04.2024.
HHJ signed on : 10.04.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.885/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
10.04.2024
05.44 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
10.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
10.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
10.04.2024
Page 6 of 6