Mumbai, June 29, 2022 – Bhushan Vijay Jadhav has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with an assault case. Additional Sessions Judge M.G. Deshpande granted bail, citing Jadhav’s non-fatal role in the incident and his extended period of detention.

Jadhav was arrested in connection with Crime No. 609/2022, registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station. He was charged with offences punishable under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 341 (wrongful restraint), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace),¹ 506(2) (criminal intimidation),² 141 (unlawful assembly), 143 (being member of an unlawful assembly), 144 (joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 147³ (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the⁴ Indian Penal Code.

The Allegations and Complainant’s Account

The complainant, an office boy in the office of Hari Shastri, secretary of Maharashtra Kamgar Sena, reported that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of individuals, including Jadhav, on June 1, 2022. The incident stemmed from a prior altercation with Bunty Sawant, who had allegedly threatened the complainant and his colleagues. The complainant alleged that Jadhav used a bamboo stick to assault him.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations

Jadhav’s defense argued that his role in the incident was not fatal and that he had been in custody for over 22 days. The defense also argued that the investigating officer’s claims about absconding accused and undisposed weapons were vague and did not justify further detention.

The court, after reviewing the CCTV footage and hearing arguments from both sides, noted that:

• Jadhav’s role in the assault involved using a bamboo stick to strike the complainant’s legs and waist, not vital areas.
• This role prima facie indicated involvement in an offense under Section 324 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means).
• Jadhav had been in custody for over 22 days.
• The investigating officer’s claims about absconding accused and undisposed weapons were general and vague, without specifying which weapon was recovered from Jadhav.
• The investigation to the extent of Jadhav was already over.
• Keeping the accused in jail for an uncertain period was not justified.

Reasons for Granting Bail

The court cited the following reasons for granting bail:

• Non-Fatal Role: Jadhav’s role in the assault was not fatal.
• Extended Detention: He had been in custody for over 22 days.
• Vague Claims by Investigating Officer: The investigating officer’s claims about absconding accused and undisposed weapons were vague.
• Investigation Over: The investigation to the extent of Jadhav was already over.
• Uncertainty of Trial: Keeping the accused in jail for an uncertain period was not justified.

Conditions of Bail

Jadhav was granted bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 and a surety bond of the same amount.
• He must attend Nirmal Nagar Police Station once a week on every Sunday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM for 60 days.
• He must not pressurize the complainant or prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
• He must not leave Mumbai without the court’s permission.
• He was permitted to furnish provisional cash security of Rs. 15,000 for a period of two months.
• Bail before the Ld. Court of First Instance.

Implications and Future Proceedings

The granting of bail highlights the court’s consideration of the specific role of the accused in the alleged offense and the duration of their detention. The court’s decision also reflects the principle that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The case will proceed with further investigation and trial, where the prosecution will present its evidence, and the defense will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations. This decision reflects the courts careful consideration of facts and circumstances in criminal proceedings.