Introduction

In a notable decision, the City Civil and Sessions Court of Greater Bombay granted bail to two applicants, Abhishek Sudhir Jadhav and Hasib Nizam Shaikh, involved in an assault case registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, Criminal Bail Application No. 2 of 2024, raised significant issues around evidence sufficiency, witness safety, and the role of judicial discretion in bail applications. Presiding over the matter, Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar ruled on January 4, 2024, in favor of granting bail under strict conditions, underscoring the nuanced approach required in criminal bail jurisprudence.

Case Background

The bail application arose from a police complaint filed by the first informant, Vinod Jaisingh Pawar, who alleged that the applicants assaulted him, his brother Mangesh Pawar, and their mother following a family event. The incident allegedly took place on the night of December 17-18, 2023, at Siddharth Seva Sangh in Mumbai, where a birthday celebration for the first informant’s nephew had been organized. A dispute reportedly erupted after the applicants demanded alcohol from Mangesh Pawar, who refused. This refusal allegedly led to verbal abuse, threats, and a physical confrontation. During the altercation, the applicants purportedly injured Vinod with a beer bottle, causing him to bleed, and later attacked another family member, Manoj Pawar, with a chopper, resulting in a fracture in his left hand.

The First Information Report (FIR) initially included charges under sections 324 (causing hurt), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation), read with section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. Later, section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) was added following the discovery of Manoj’s fracture. On December 21, 2023, the applicants were arrested under these charges.

Arguments Presented in Court

1. Applicants’ Defense for Bail:

• The applicants’ counsel, Advocate Bipin Chawda, argued that the investigation was practically complete, and there was no reason to believe the applicants would abscond or tamper with evidence.
• They emphasized that the applicants were permanent residents within the jurisdiction of the court, had no prior criminal records, and thus did not pose a flight risk.
• The defense argued that any injuries were accidental, as the informant allegedly slipped on a beer bottle and sustained injuries while falling on his brother, negating the need for a grievous hurt charge under section 326. Additionally, the applicants contended that they were being falsely accused following their refusal to cover medical expenses for the informant’s injuries.

1. Prosecution’s Objections to Bail:

• The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Sulbha Joshi, representing the State of Maharashtra, argued against bail, stating that the applicants had been uncooperative in the investigation. The prosecution emphasized that the alleged chopper used in the attack was not recovered, and there was a concern that the applicants might intimidate witnesses or engage in further violence if released.

Judgment and Analysis

After reviewing the arguments and evidence, Judge Pawar issued a detailed order granting bail to the applicants, based on the following considerations:

1. Lack of Sufficient Evidence for Deadly Weapon Use:

• Although the complaint initially stated that a chopper was used, there were inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the use of this weapon. Manoj’s statement to the informant at Sion Hospital did not include mention of a chopper, raising doubts about the actual events. Given this ambiguity, the court found it reasonable to question the applicability of section 326, which mandates grievous hurt by dangerous weaponry.

1. Nature of Injuries:

• The court noted that while injuries were reported, they were not categorically described as grievous. The evidence was insufficient to justify keeping the applicants detained under more severe charges, especially given the fracture injury’s questionable causation.

1. No Criminal Antecedents or Flight Risk:

• Considering the applicants’ local residence, stable background, and lack of prior criminal record, the judge found little basis for continued detention. Their compliance with the investigation thus far and the lack of previous offenses worked in their favor.

1. Mitigating Concerns of Witness Intimidation:

• The judge acknowledged the prosecution’s concerns regarding potential intimidation of witnesses but imposed specific conditions to mitigate this risk. The conditions included prohibitions on contacting the informant or tampering with evidence and required regular attendance at trial.

Conditions for Bail and Provisional Cash Bail

To ensure compliance and minimize risks, the court imposed a series of stringent conditions on the applicants:

• Posting a personal recognizance bond of ₹20,000 each, along with a surety of the same amount.
• Avoiding contact with the complainants, abstaining from any threats or inducements, and refraining from similar offenses while out on bail.
• Maintaining regular attendance at trial proceedings, as well as promptly updating contact details with the court.

In addition, a provisional cash bail of ₹20,000 each was granted for six weeks to further ensure adherence to these conditions.

Conclusion

This case underscores the court’s duty to balance the rights of the accused with the protection of public order and witness safety. The Bombay Sessions Court’s decision reflects a careful approach to bail jurisprudence, where the applicants’ rights to freedom and the presumption of innocence were weighed against the gravity of the allegations. By allowing bail under strict conditions, the court demonstrated the need for tailored judicial discretion in bail matters, emphasizing that the absence of concrete evidence and criminal history can tilt the balance in favor of granting bail, even in assault cases involving serious allegations.

The bail conditions and provisional measures imposed set a legal precedent in similar cases, illustrating the judiciary’s approach to resolving ambiguities in evidence and upholding the integrity of judicial processes while respecting the rights of all parties involved.

Nishant Upadhyay