Mumbai, February 20, 2024 – The Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai has granted bail to businessman Subhash Puranlala Ahir (48), who was recently convicted of assault under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The conviction stemmed from a criminal case (C.R. No.152/2012) registered at Ghatkopar Police Station.

Ahir, a resident of Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai, had been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹15,000, with an additional 15 days of simple imprisonment (SI) in case of default in fine payment. However, the Sessions Court suspended the sentence pending appeal, allowing him to secure bail.

Background of the Case

Ahir was accused of causing voluntary hurt using a dangerous weapon, a crime punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. The case, which dates back to 2012, alleged that Ahir had physically assaulted the complainant, resulting in serious injuries.

After years of legal proceedings, the trial court convicted Ahir on January 3, 2024, sentencing him to one year in jail. Following the conviction, Ahir filed an appeal challenging the judgment and the severity of the sentence.

---

Defense’s Argument for Bail

Advocate Vijaysingh Bali, representing the accused, argued that:

• Ahir had been on bail throughout the trial, indicating he was not a flight risk.
• The conviction was based on disputed evidence, and Ahir intended to appeal the verdict.
• The offense, though serious, did not warrant immediate incarceration, as the case had been pending for over a decade.
• Ahir was a businessman with deep roots in Mumbai, making absconding unlikely.

Prosecution’s Opposition to BailAdditional Public Prosecutor (APP) Kishor Tadavi, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, opposed the bail application, stating that:

• The trial court had already found Ahir guilty, meaning he should serve his sentence immediately.
• There was a risk that Ahir might abscond, delaying justice.
• The offense was serious, and granting bail might send the wrong message.

Despite these objections, the court ruled in favor of bail due to the pending appeal.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Presiding over the case, Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Shrikhande (C.R. No.87) noted that:

1. Ahir had remained on bail throughout the trial without any violations.
2. The sentence had been suspended, meaning the accused should not be immediately incarcerated.
3. The appellate process could take time, and keeping Ahir in jail before his appeal is heard would be unfair.

Taking these factors into account, the court granted bail with certain conditions.

Bail Conditions Imposed by the Court

1. Ahir must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹15,000, along with a surety of the same amount.
2. He must report to the trial court within one month to complete bail formalities.
3. Provisional cash bail for one month was allowed, after which he must secure a surety.
4. He must not tamper with evidence or contact the complainant.
5. He must remain present in court as and when required.

What’s Next?

With bail granted, Ahir remains free while his appeal is pending. If the Sessions Court overturns the trial court’s conviction, he will be fully exonerated. However, if his appeal is denied, he may still have to serve the one-year sentence.

The case highlights the complexities of long-standing legal battles and the balancing act courts must perform between punishment and due process.