Mumbai, January 22, 2024 – Radhakrishna Elumalai Harijan, accused in a brutal knife attack on a woman and her two minor daughters in Vakola, has been denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shri V.M. Sundale. The court cited the severity of the offense, the ongoing investigation, and the accused’s history as a habitual offender as reasons for rejecting his bail application (B.A. 61/2024).
Harijan is charged with attempted murder (Section 307), intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace (Section 504), and common intention (Section 34) of the Indian1 Penal Code, in connection with Crime No. 987/2023 registered at Vakola Police Station. The prosecution alleges that on November 12, 2023, Harijan, along with two unidentified individuals, entered the residence of Rajeshwari Harijan and inflicted severe knife injuries on her and her two daughters.
The prosecution, represented by Ms. Ratnavali Patil, strongly opposed the bail, highlighting the gravity of the offense and the ongoing investigation. They emphasized that Harijan is the main accused, and the weapon used in the attack was recovered at his instance. Furthermore, the prosecution revealed that Harijan is a habitual offender, with a similar offense registered against him in 2021 (Crime No. 276/2021).
The Investigating Officer (IO) also stressed that the victims’ statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused are yet to be conducted. The IO expressed serious concerns that releasing Harijan on bail would lead to him pressuring the victims, hampering the investigation, and potentially fleeing from justice.
Rajeshwari Harijan, the victim, also appeared through her advocate, Shri Himanshu Singh, as an intervener, opposing the bail and echoing the prosecution’s concerns.
Shri Rajendra Mishra, representing Harijan, argued for his client’s release. However, the court, after reviewing the records and hearing both sides, found merit in the prosecution’s arguments.
Judge Sundale noted that Harijan’s name and role were specifically mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR). The court also acknowledged the severe injuries sustained by the victims, including stab wounds to the neck, stomach, and nose. The IO’s submission that Harijan is the “main feliciter” and the recovery of the weapon from him further solidified the prosecution’s case.
The court emphasized the gravity of the offense under Section 307 of the IPC, which carries a potential sentence of life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 years. The fact that the investigation is at a primary stage, coupled with the threat posed by Harijan to the victims and witnesses, weighed heavily against granting bail.
Furthermore, the court took note of the threat issued by Harijan’s mother to the informant and her daughters after the registration of the present offense. This reinforced the apprehension that Harijan’s release would jeopardize the safety of the victims.
“The apprehension placed on record by the investigating officer regarding pressurizing the prosecution witnesses and committing similar offence are well founded,” Judge Sundale stated in his order. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is not entitled to release on bail particularly at this stage.”
Consequently, the court rejected Harijan’s bail application, ensuring his continued detention pending further investigation and trial. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to protecting victims and ensuring the integrity of the judicial process, particularly in cases involving serious offenses and habitual offenders.