Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 22, 2022 – 114 employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) have been granted bail in a case related to a protest outside the residence of Minister Sharad Pawar. The Additional Sessions Judge, R.M. Sadrani, of the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, approved their bail application (Bail Application No. 894 of 2022) citing the lack of grievous injury to police personnel and the non-attraction of stringent charges like Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case:

The 114 applicants were arrested and charged under various sections of the IPC, including 142 (being member of unlawful assembly), 143 (being member of unlawful assembly), 145 (joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse), 147 (rioting), 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty¹ of offense committed in prosecution of common object), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to² deter public servant from his duty), 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his³ duty), 448 (house-trespass), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 107 (abetment of a thing), 109 (punishment of abetment if act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment),⁴ 120B (criminal conspiracy),⁵ 335 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation), 440 (mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or grievous hurt), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender),⁶ 204 (fraudulent destruction of document, etc.), and Section 37 read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Allegations and Arrest:

According to the prosecution, on April 8, 2022, a mob of 90-100 people, including the applicants, pelted stones and chappals towards Minister Sharad Pawar’s residence, “Silver Oak,” while police were on duty to prevent MSRTC employees from entering the premises. Police Constable Avhad was reportedly rendered unconscious and admitted to Breach Candy Hospital, while Police Head Constable Satish Pundlik Pandav sustained a minor injury.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate Nitin Sejpal, representing the applicants, argued for their release on bail. (Specific defense arguments are not detailed in the provided order.)

Prosecution’s Counter-Arguments:

Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Gharat, representing the state, opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicants were involved in a violent protest and that their leader, Adv. Dr. Gunratna Sadavarte, was the mastermind behind the crime and had misappropriated funds collected from the employees.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Sadrani noted that neither the complainant nor his colleague, Avhad, sustained grievous injuries. Avhad was discharged from Breach Candy Hospital on the same day and later admitted to J.J. Hospital for a pre-existing stomach pain exacerbated by exertion. The court pointed out that the medical documents contradicted the prosecution’s claim that Avhad was still under treatment.

“There is no grievous injury either to informant or his colleague Avhad. Avhad was discharged from Breach Candy Hospital on the same day. On the same day, he had made a complaint to the doctor about stomach pain since sometime back with exertion. On the next day, he was admitted to J.J. Hospital under Dr.SRB unit and he was discharged from the hospital on 15/04/2022. As per say of the prosecution, he is still under treatment and admitted in hospital. However, documents are different from the say. Apparently, Section 333 of IPC is not attracted in the absence of any grievous injury. Rest of the offences are punishable for five years, so far applicants are concerned. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application,” Judge Sadrani stated in his order.

The court concluded that Section 333 of the IPC, which pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter a public servant from duty, was not attracted due to the absence of grievous injury. The court also noted that the remaining offenses were punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.

Order:

The court granted bail to all 114 applicants, subject to the following conditions:

• Each applicant must execute a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount.
• Applicants must provide their detailed addresses and phone numbers at the time of furnishing bail.
• Bail must be furnished before the court attending remand.
• Applicants must attend Gamdevi Police Station as and when called by the investigating officer.
• Applicants must not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• Applicants must not leave India without prior court permission.

Significance of the Ruling:

This ruling highlights the court’s consideration of the severity of injuries and the applicability of stringent charges when deciding bail applications in protest-related cases. The court’s decision underscores that in cases where there is a lack of grievous injury and the stringent charges are not attracted, bail can be granted with appropriate conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent witness tampering.

Key Factors in the Bail Grant:

• Lack of grievous injury to police personnel.
• Non-attraction of stringent charges like Section 333 of the IPC.
• The remaining offenses are punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.
• Conditions to ensure the applicants’ presence and prevent witness tampering.

Future Proceedings:

The investigation will continue, and the chargesheet will be filed. The trial will then proceed in the Sessions Court, where the prosecution will be required to prove the charges against the applicants beyond a reasonable doubt. The court will monitor the applicants’ compliance with the bail conditions.