Bail Application No.123/2024.
MHCC020008432024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 123 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 322 OF 2023.
Samir Balkrishna Raut
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Kalachowki Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.322/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Prasad S. Panchal for the Applicant.
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 : 19TH JANUARY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Samir Balkrishna Raut
being accused in C.R.No.322/2023 registered with Kalachowki Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”), seeks bail
Page 1 of 5
Bail Application No.123/2024.
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short,
“CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, as on 28.11.2023 at
about 2.00 pm. informant’s sister was at their home and the
applicant, who resided in the same vicinity came at their house and
having a grudge that, the informant’s sister had a breakup in their
love affair
and further denied to continue with such love affair,
applicant/accused in order to kill her assaulted her with a blade on
her right side of the neck and right hand on the wrist, he also hurled
abuses and tried to kill her.

The informant’s sister called the
informant and thereafter with the help of the neighbours the
informant’s sister was hospitalized. Thus, the offence was registered
under Sections ibid.
3.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
applicant/accused is falsely implicated.

states
that,
the
The applicant/accused
admits for the relationship between him and the victim and also
admitted for such small quarrels/altercations between either of them.
Further, it is stated that, the applicant also has lodged NC against the
informant’s sister as on 28.11.2023 and that as the victim’s family did
not like the company of applicant and hence they used to take up
quarrels with him. Further, the sections invoked do not attract for
the role attributed to the applicant/accused. Factum of intention is
missing and that it is the applicant/accused, who himself surrendered
before the sleuth of respondent agency. Thus, the Ld. Advocate for
Page 2 of 5
Bail Application No.123/2024.
applicant/accused states for no further incarceration is required.
Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicant prayed for enlarging the
applicant/accused on bail.
4.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that, the victim and applicant reside in one
and the same vicinity and therefore, there is every possibility that, the
applicant/accused might threaten the victim as well as the
prosecution witnesses. Further, the statement under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. is yet to be recorded. The injury report categorically states for
the gravity of offences and that the applicant/accused was
hospitalized as an indoor patient.

Therefore, the prosecution
apprehends for abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening
to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for
rejection of application.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for the State.
Perused the application and reply.

6.

On copious perusal of the case record it evinces to myself
that, the applicant/accused has not denied for his presence at the
spot of incident, nor has denied for the act as attributed to him.
Thus, it propels for his active participation in the crime and this ipso-
facto disentitles the applicant/accused from any such relief of
enlargement on bail. The medical documents propels for the injury
at the neck/throat of the victim alongwith the wrist of the victim and
Page 3 of 5
Bail Application No.123/2024.
therefore, the choice of organs is also defined by the applicant, which
propels for such intention in prima-facie.
7.

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.

8.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant, the presence of the applicant/accused at the
relevant spot of incident has not been explained and the gravity and
nature of injury speaks in quantum. Thus, in view of the same, I do
not find this as a fit case for grant of bail. Investigation is at nascent
stage and therefore, granting of such relief will naturally derail the
momentum of investigation. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I
hold that, the application deserves no consideration. Hence, order
infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.123/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 19.01.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.01.20
16:01:59 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 19.01.2024.
Transcribed on : 19.01.2024.
HHJ signed on : 20.01.2024.

Page 4 of 5
Bail Application No.123/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
20.01.2024
04.01 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
19.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
20.01.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
20.01.2024
uploaded
Page 5 of 5