Mumbai, February 3, 2024 – In a significant ruling, the Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, presiding in Court Room No. 30, rejected the bail plea of 24-year-old Chetan Suresh Kamble alias Banty. The accused is charged with attempted murder and grievous assault under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Maharashtra Police Act, following a violent altercation that occurred in April 2023.
The Case Background
The case stems from a brutal attack on a victim, identified as Mandar, on April 22, 2023, in Wadala. According to police records, Chetan Kamble, along with other accused, allegedly attacked Mandar with deadly weapons, including a sickle. The victim suffered grievous injuries to his scalp, forehead, and wrist while attempting to fend off the assault.
Kamble was arrested on the day of the incident and has been in custody since. The charges against him include attempted murder (Section 307 IPC), causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons (Section 326 IPC), and unlawful assembly (Sections 146-149 IPC). Additional charges under Section 37(1) and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act have also been invoked, citing public endangerment and violation of law enforcement directives.
The Bail Application and Defense Arguments
Kamble’s defense, led by Advocate Abhishek Jha, argued that the accused was innocent and falsely implicated. The defense highlighted the completion of the police investigation and the filing of a charge sheet as grounds for bail. Kamble’s legal team also cited his permanent residence as assurance against flight risk and emphasized his willingness to comply with all court-imposed conditions.
Further, the defense sought to draw parallels with co-accused individuals who had been granted bail by the Bombay High Court. In particular, they referred to the cases of three co-accused: Akshay Kamble, Wasim Lala, and Chotu Jaiswal. However, these arguments failed to sway the court.
Prosecution’s Opposition
The prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, vehemently opposed the bail application. The prosecution argued that Kamble’s release posed a risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering. They underscored Kamble’s alleged direct involvement in the crime, labeling him one of the key assailants in the premeditated attack. The prosecution also highlighted Kamble’s criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offense, stressing that releasing him on bail would undermine the interests of justice.
Court’s Observations
In a detailed analysis of the case, Judge Sasne rejected the bail plea, emphasizing Kamble’s active role in the attack. The court noted that Kamble was armed with a sickle and targeted the victim with clear intent to cause harm.
The judge observed, “The injury certificate reveals grievous injuries to the victim’s wrist. The accused’s preparedness, evidenced by carrying a deadly weapon, demonstrates intent and a pivotal role in the crime.”
The court also clarified that the circumstances surrounding the bail of the co-accused were different. Unlike Kamble, the co-accused were not directly involved in the assault. For instance, Akshay Kamble was alleged to have waved a chopper in the air, while Chotu Jaiswal was merely the motorcycle rider, and Wasim Lala had no overt involvement. Hence, the court ruled that Kamble could not claim parity.
Concerns Over Public Safety
Judge Sasne further highlighted Kamble’s criminal background, expressing concerns over potential tampering with evidence and witness intimidation. The court concluded, “Considering the seriousness of the offense, the active role played by the applicant, and the likelihood of interference in the judicial process, the bail application is rejected.”
Key Takeaways from the Order
- Role and Intent: Kamble’s role as an active assailant, armed with a sickle, was central to the court’s decision.
- Injury Evidence: The grievous nature of the victim’s injuries corroborated the prosecution’s claims of a violent, premeditated assault.
- No Parity: The court differentiated Kamble’s case from the co-accused, rejecting arguments for equal treatment.
- Public Safety: The decision reflected the court’s prioritization of witness protection and the integrity of the judicial process.
Order Details
- Application Rejected: The bail application filed by Kamble was dismissed.
- Judge: Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne.
- Date of Order Pronouncement: January 31, 2024.
- Upload and Certification: The order was transcribed on February 2, 2024, and uploaded on February 3, 2024.
Conclusion
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance on protecting public safety and ensuring accountability in cases involving grievous offenses. As the trial progresses, Kamble will remain in custody, awaiting further proceedings.
