MHCC020053822022
IN THE SESSIONS COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.954 OF 2022
(CRIME NO.91 OF 2022, SHAHU NAGAR POLICE STATION)
CNR No.MHCC02-005382-2022
1. Vasant Bhupathi Mahesh Nadar @
]
Vasantha Poopathi Mahesh,
]
Aged about 24 years,
]
Permanent resident of 124, Poomari
]
Amman Kovil Street, Maththalamparai, ]
Thirikukuda Puram, Sillaraipuravu,
]
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu – 627 814.
]
AND
Presently residing at Room No.3,
]
Block No.12, Transist Camp, M. G. Road, ]
Anand Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai -17.
]
2. Laxman Mani Nadar @
]
Lakshmanan Mani,
]
Aged 23 years,
]
Residing at 4/48, East Street
]
Kongarayankurichi Srivaikuntam
]
Thoothukkudi, Tamil Nadu – 628 619. ]
AND
Presently residing at Room No.3,
]
Block No.12, Transist Camp, M. G. Road, ]
Anand Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai -17.
]
(Presently all accused are in Mumbai
Central Prison).

]
]
… Applicants
-2-
BA 954/22
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
]
2. The Senior Inspector of Police,
Shahunagar police station.

]
]
… Respondents
Appearances :Ms. Sangeeta B. Suchdev, Ld. Adv. for applicants.
Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, Ld. A.P.P. for respondents/State.
Mr. Asif Latif Shaikh, Ld. Adv. for intervener.
CORAM : VISHAL S. GAIKE,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM NO.22.
DATE : 8th June, 2022.
ORDER
This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No.91 of
2022 registered at Shahu Nagar police station for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 324, 326, 323, 504, 506, 143, 145,
147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1) r/w. 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act and Section 4 r/w. 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, on 06/04/2022, the
complainant Peter Ponraj, resident of Rajiv Gandhi Chawl, Room
No.69, Dhorwada, Dharavi, Mumbai, gave report that he is residing
alone on the given address since last 20 years and is earning his
livelihood from his shop. On 06/04/2022, he was proceeding at
1.30 a.m. along with his friends Isai Balan, Ramji and Anabu Hasan for
having tea. They were passing through Kumbharwada junction and
-3-
BA 954/22
proceeding towards Anna Nagar. When they reached near Kasturibai
Chawl, a person namely Adhistharaja called Isai Balan towards him.
Isai was reluctant to go near Adhistharaja, hence, he got angry and
scuffled with him. Isai Balan pushed Adhistharaja in self defence, but at
that time, 4-5 friends of Adhistharaja, namely Anil Shelte, Bhupati
Nadar, Kartik, Selva and Sultan started assaulting Isai Balan.
Adhistharaja asked Anil and Nadar to bring sickle and when the sickle
brought by Nadar. Adhistharaja assaulted Isai Balan. Therefore, the
complainant and his friends intervened and rescued Isai Balan and
immediately took him to Sion Hospital. Doctors referred him to I.C.U.
3.

The say of the Investigating Officer was called. He stated
that, the victim had sustained grievous injury to his head. Therefore, on
08/04/2022, Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 r/w.
25 of the Arms Act were invoked against the accused. On 09/04/2022,
the informant Peter voluntarily appeared in the police station and
requested to record his additional statement which he did not make in
the F.I.R. Hence, his additional statement was recorded. He stated that
the accused had conspired and with an intention to kill the
complainant and his friends, they committed the said crime in which
Isai Balan sustained grievous injury. Hence, on the basis of said
statement, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was also invoked
against the accused. The weapon i.e. sickle used in the commission of
offence was discovered at the behest of Adhistharaja and was seized
accordingly. The C.C.T.V. footage of the area was obtained in which it
can be seen that accused Nos.1 to 4 and one absconding accused are
assaulting the complainant and Isai Balan with wooden stump, an iron
pipe, etc.

-4-
4.

BA 954/22
The certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence
Act was obtained in respect of the said C.C.T.V. footage. The medico
legal case paper pertaining to victim Isai Balan was obtained from Sion
Hospital, Mumbai, which states that he has sustained grievous injury to
his head. The Investigating Officer has further stated that the accused
have created the terror in their locality, therefore, no witness came
forward to give statement against them. If the applicants are released
on bail, then they may pressurise the complainant and witnesses and
hamper the investigation. Absconding accused are yet to be arrested.
Applicants belong to another State. Therefore, if they are granted bail,
then they may abscond and may not remain present in the Court. The
investigation is in progress and the applicants may hamper the
investigation, if they are granted bail. They may commit another
cognizable offence and disturb the law and order. The eye witnesses
have given statements against the applicants. Therefore, the application
may be rejected. The Investigating Officer has annexed the photographs
of the victim taken in the Hospital during his treatment.
5.

The complainant appeared during the hearing of the
application and filed his intervention application which was allowed.
6.

Heard the parties. Perused the record. Learned counsel for
the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and they have not
committed any offence, as alleged. They have been falsely implicated
by the complainant. The ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code are not attracted against the applicants, as there is no prima facie
material to come to the conclusion that the accused had an intention to
-5-
BA 954/22
kill the complainant and the victim. The F.I.R. does not disclose the
time of information which was received at the police station. The name
of applicant No.2 is not mentioned in the F.I.R.

No weapon is
attributed to the applicants. As per the remand application of the
Investigating Officer, the allegations against the applicants are of
assaulting the victim with hands. Investigation is almost completed.
Hence, no further purpose would be served by keeping the applicants
behind the bars. They are ready to abide any condition which may be
imposed upon them, in the event of their application being allowed.
Hence, they may kindly be released on bail.
7.

Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application and
submitted that the investigation is in progress. The applicants are
habitual offenders and they may commit another cognizable offence
against the complainant and witnesses. Therefore, the bail application
may kindly be rejected.
8.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener
opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
9.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by both
the parties. I have perused the record. The M.L.C. paper of the victim
reflects that he has sustained one grievous injury on his left parietal
region and rest of the eight injuries are simple in nature. The contents
of the F.I.R. reflects that there was sudden fight between two groups in
which the victim may have sustained the alleged injuries. The name of
applicant No.2 is not appearing in the F.I.R. From the contents of F.I.R.,
prima facie, ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are not
-6-
BA 954/22
attracted. The police have invoked Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code on the basis of additional statement of the informant recorded 3
days after the incident. The contents of case diary reflects that
substantial investigation has been completed. Admittedly, the victim is
discharged from the Hospital in the month of April itself. The criminal
antecedents of the applicants are alleged by the investigating agency.
But, no details of it are given in the say of the Investigating Officer. The
applicants are young boys of 24 years and 23 years of age respectively.
Both the applicants are from the State of Tamil Nadu and staying in
Maharashtra for their livelihood. Their appears no prima facie
possibility that they would flee away from justice or commit similar
offence. The apprehension of prosecution regarding commission of
similar offence by them, may be taken care of by imposing appropriate
conditions. Hence, I am inclined to allow the present application and
proceed to pass the following order :ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.954 of 2022 is hereby allowed.

2.
Applicant Nos.1 Vasant Bhupathi Mahesh Nadar @
Vasantha Poopathi Mahesh and 2. Laxman Mani Nadar @ Lakshmanan
Mani in C.R.No.91 of 2022 registered with Shahu Nagar police station
for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 326, 323, 504,
506, 143, 145, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1) r/w.
135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section 4 r/w. 25 of the Indian
Arms Act, shall be released on bail on executing their P.R. bond of
Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties each in the like amount, and
on following conditions :(a)
They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and
evidence ;
(b)
They shall furnish their detail address, mobile/contact
number, address proof and identity proof at the time of furnishing bail ;
-7-
BA 954/22
(c)
In case of change of their residence or mobile/contact
number, they shall inform it to the Court and Investigating Officer ;
(d)
They shall attend the Court regularly ;
(e)
They shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without
the permission of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and if the case is
committed to this Court, without the permission of this Court ;
(f)
The applicants shall not give any threat or pressurise the
complainant and witnesses in any manner which may dissuade them
from disclosing any fact of the case to the police officer or to the Court.
3.
Bail shall be furnished before concerned Metropolitan
Magistrate. If the case is committed to this Court, then the bail shall be
furnished before this Court.
4.

Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
SADASHIVRAO
GAIKE
Date:
2022.06.14
12:08:17 +0530
Date : 08/06/2022.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 08/06/2022.
: 10/06/2022.
:
( VISHAL SADASHIVRAO GAIKE )
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT,
GREATER MUMBAI.

-8-
BA 954/22
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
14/06/2022 at 12.10 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Bahushruta Y. Jambhale
Name of the Judge ( With Court H.H.J. Shri Vishal S. Gaike
Room No.)
(Court Room No.22)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 08/06/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
14/06/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
14/06/2022.