1
MHCC020086342022
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
:28062022
: 28062022
: 18102022
: 00Y 03M
20D
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT
BOMBAY
( Court No.17 )
(Presided Over by Sunil U. Hake)
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1592 OF 2022
Vishal Girish Kakade @ Danny
Age 19 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Resident of Room No.16, B wing
Matunga Labor Camp, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,
T. H. Katariya Marg, Matuna West,
Mumbai.
..Applicant
V/S
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Dadar Railway Police
Station, Mumbai Vide CR No.130/22)
..Respondent
Appearance:
Ld. Advocate Shri. Amrish Salunkhe for the Applicant/Accused
Mrs. Ashwini Raykar for the State/respondent.
CORAM : SUNIL U.HAKE
ADDL. S.JUDGE (C.R.17)
DATE : 18/10/2022.
2
ORAL ORDER
1.
This is an application filed by applicant/accused
Vishal Girish Kakade @ Danny for grant of bail under section
439(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under sections 302,
324, 201, 120(B), 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code and 4, 25 of Indian Arms Act in Crime bearing
No.130/2022 registered with Dadar Railway police station.
2.
Perused the application and say of investigating
officer.
3.
Heard both the sides.
Prosecution case:
4.
On 24/02/2022, at about 2.15 a.m. witnessRajesh
Lakhan Paswan woke up as someone has assaulted on his head.
He saw that accusedSunder Naidu was holding broken bottle of
beer.
DeceasedSiddharth @ Siddhu was sleeping(hereinafter
referred to as ‘deceased’). AccusedVishal Rakesh Chavria,
accusedGanesh Narsingh Aavallu @ Mama, accused/applicant
Vishal Girish Kakade @ Danny and accusedHimal Meghraj Singh
@ Nepali were standing there. WitnessRajesh Paswan got
frightened.
bridge.
He managed to hide himself below the railway
Accused/applicant Vishal Girish Kakade @ Danny,
accusedGanesh Aavallu and accusedSunder Naidu assaulted
3
deceased. They dragged deceased towards railway track No.1.
Accused/applicantVishal Girish Kakade @ Danny assaulted by
bamboo on head of deceased. AccusedGanesh assaulted by stone
on the head of deceased.
AccusedSunder Naidu assaulted
deceased by knife. AccusedSunder Naidu picked up one stone
and assaulted by said stone on the head of deceased.
After
assault, all the accused ran away from the place of incident.
5.
Initially, first information report was registered
against unknown persons. However, investigating officer found
involvement of the above referred accused, accusedLaxman
Balchand Jaiswar and accusedKalpesh Dongre in said offence.
Investigating officer arrested them.
6.
Accused/applicant Vishal Girish Kakade @ Danny
(hereinafter referred to as (‘Accused/applicant’) prayed for bail
on following amongst other grounds:
(a)
First Information Report does not show involvement
of accused/applicant. Report is given against unknown persons.
Investigating officers arrested seven accused during investigation.
However, CCTV footage collected by the investigating officer does
not show involvement of accused/applicant.
(b)
Ld. Counsel for accused/applicant relied upon Post
Mortem notes and submitted that cause of death of deceased was
‘haemorrhagic shock following chop and lacerated injuries
(unnatural)’. As per prosecution case,
accused/applicant
assaulted deceased by bamboo. Considering the cause of death
4
mentioned in Post Mortem notes, it cannot be construed that
accused/applicant was responsible for causing death of deceased.
(c)
Accused/applicant is permanent resident of Mumbai.
He has no criminal antecedents.
He is ready to abide by the
conditions imposed by the Court.
By making these submissions, Ld. Counsel for
accused/applicant prayed to enlarge him on bail.
7.
Ld. A.P.P. strongly opposed the bail application and
submits that investigating officer recorded statement of an eye
witnessRajesh Lakhan Paswan. Said eye witness also sustained
injury during the course of incident.
Paswan specifically states that
WitnessRajesh Lakhan
accused/applicant assaulted
deceased and dragged deceased towards railway track No.1.
Accused/applicant assaulted deceased by bamboo on head. Thus,
there is direct involvement of
accused/applicant in alleged
offence.
8.
AccusedSunder Naidu and
accused/applicant are
related to each other. Accused/applicant assaulted deceased on
the ground that three days prior to the incident, deceased abused
wife of accusedSunder Naidu. She is sister of accused/applicant.
Alleged offence is very serious. Considering the nature of offence
and specific allegations made against accused/applicant, he is not
entitled to be released on bail.
5
9.
Considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
both sides. First Information Report is given against unknown
persons.
However, record shows that investigating officer has
recorded statement of an eye witnessRajesh Lakhan Paswan. He
has specifically stated that
accused/applicant assaulted by
bamboo on the head of deceased.
10.
It is argued on behalf of
accused/applicant that
cause of death is ‘haemorrhagic shock following chop and
lacerated injuries (unnatural)’ and authorship of these injuries
cannot be attributed to accused/applicant. Post Mortem notes
show that deceased sustained as much as 32 Ante mortem
injuries. Deceased sustained multiple lacerations on his head. As
per prosecution case, accused/applicant assaulted deceased by
bamboo on his head. Thus, prima facie, it cannot be construed
that accused/applicant has no role in the alleged offence.
11.
The investigating officer collected CCTV footage of
the surrounding area which captured some of the accused while
running away from the place of incident. However, said CCTV
footage does not pertain to the actual incident.
12.
Alleged offence is serious. There is direct evidence
on record to show involvement of accused/applicant in alleged
offence. Post Mortem notes show that deceased was brutally
murdered. As per prosecution case, prior to three days of incident,
deceased abused sister of accused/applicant and on that count
6
accused/applicant along with other accused committed murder of
deceased when deceased was sleeping. Alleged offence appears
to be premediated. Considering the nature of offence and specific
allegations made against accused/applicant, he is not entitled to
be released on bail. In the result, following order.
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.1592/2022 is rejected.
SUNIL
UTTAMRAO
HAKE
Digitally signed by SUNIL
UTTAMRAO HAKE
Date: 2022.10.20
13:38:28 +0530
( S.U.HAKE )
Addl. Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions
Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 18.10.2022.
: 19.10.2022
: 19.10.2022
7
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
20/10/22 at 01.30 pm.
Mrs.Tanushree C.Kamble
Name of the Judge
HHJ SHRI SU Hake
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
18/10/2022
Judgment and order signed by P.O.
19/10/22
Judgment/order uploaded on
20/10/22