Mumbai, Maharashtra – July 11, 2022 – In a ruling that brought relief to three young men accused of a violent assault, the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay granted bail to Edwin Edward Fernandes, Ashlyn Patric Fernandes, and Joel Joseph Mattos in connection with a case registered at Ghatkopar Police Station. The court, presided over by Additional Judge S.M. Menjoge, deemed further detention unnecessary, citing factors including the nature of the complainant’s injuries and the recovery of alleged weapons.
The case, registered as C.R. No. 600/2022, stemmed from a complaint filed by Vaibhav Prakash Patil, who alleged a brutal assault on the night of June 19, 2022, near the Ramji Nagar bridge in Ghatkopar. Patil claimed that he was standing with friends Namit Amre and Ganesh Jadhav when the three accused, along with another individual named Karan Shinde, ambushed them. The complainant stated that the assailants were armed with hockey sticks, bamboo, and sharp weapons.
According to Patil’s complaint, Ashlyn Fernandes struck him on the head with a hockey stick, Edwin Fernandes inflicted blows with a sharp weapon on his back and other parts of his body, Joel Mattos used a bamboo stick, and both Joel Mattos and another individual, Jedun Mathew, assaulted him with hands and kicks. Patil further alleged that Karan Shinde inflicted a knife wound on his waist. Following the alleged assault, Patil was taken to Rajawadi Hospital for treatment before filing a police report.
The accused, Edwin Edward Fernandes (23), Ashlyn Patric Fernandes (19, a student), and Joel Joseph Mattos (28), were subsequently arrested on June 20 and 21, 2022. They were charged under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach1 of the peace), 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed2 in prosecution of common object) of the3 Indian Penal Code.
During the bail hearing, Advocate Rahul Dange, representing the accused, argued that the incident was a mere scuffle that escalated from a dispute over motorcycle parking. He emphasized that the investigating officer had already recovered the alleged weapons, negating the need for further custodial interrogation. Dange asserted that his clients had not committed the serious offences alleged and that their continued detention was unwarranted.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ramesh Siroya, strongly opposed the bail application. The investigating officer, in his reply, argued that the investigation was still ongoing and that releasing the accused could lead to witness tampering. The prosecution contended that the gravity of the alleged offenses justified keeping the accused in custody.
However, after reviewing the case diary and hearing arguments from both sides, Additional Judge S.M. Menjoge granted bail to the accused. The court highlighted several factors that influenced its decision. Notably, the court observed that the complainant was not admitted to the hospital, suggesting that his injuries were not as severe as initially claimed. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of a medical certificate corroborating the complainant’s allegations.
The court also considered the fact that the alleged weapons had been recovered and that the investigating officer had confirmed the complainant’s good health. Additionally, the court pointed out that the offenses were triable by a Magistrate, indicating that they were not of the most serious nature.
In granting bail, the court imposed stringent conditions on the accused. Each was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 and a surety of the same amount. They were also directed not to pressurize prosecution witnesses, not to commit any offenses while on bail, to attend court hearings regularly, and to provide their correct address to the investigating officer. Further, they were provided a provisional cash bail of 15,000 rupees each for four weeks, and were instructed to obtain final bail before the magistrate.
This ruling underscores the court’s commitment to balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice. It serves as a reminder of the importance of considering all aspects of a case, including the nature of the alleged offenses, the evidence collected, and the potential impact of detention on the accused. The case is expected to proceed further in the Magistrate court.