Mumbai, July 7, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge M.G. Deshpande (Court Room No. 16) granted bail to Sujeet Prakash Sawant in connection with an attempted murder case registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station (C.R. No. 609/2022). The court emphasized the specific roles attributed to the accused, the progress of the investigation, and the need to balance individual liberty with the prosecution’s concerns.
Background of the Case:
Sujeet Prakash Sawant, a resident of Khar-Bandra (East), was arrested in connection with an incident involving an assault on Santosh @ Rajveer Amrale. The case was registered 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 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 144 (joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon),3 and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the4 Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Bommer Limbadri @ Lingesh, representing Sawant, argued for bail.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ramesh Siroya, representing the State, strongly opposed the application, citing the presence of the accused in an unlawful assembly, the ongoing investigation, and the potential for the accused to abscond or tamper with evidence.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Deshpande, after reviewing the FIR and the prosecution’s submissions, analyzed the specific roles attributed to each accused person. He noted that the FIR and CCTV footage primarily implicated Ratnadeep @ Bunty Sawant, Mahendra @ Maya, and Santosh Achrekar in inflicting severe injuries on the victim.
“These facts which are prominent from the allegations made in the FIR and CCTV footage prima-facie indicate the role of Ratnadeep @ Bunty Sawant, Mahendra @ Maya and Santosh Achrekar in making assault on the vital part of the body i.e. head of Rajveer,” Judge Deshpande stated in his order.
Regarding Sawant, the court observed that his role was primarily limited to beating the victim with a stump on the legs while he was lying on the ground.
“Therefore, role attributed to him at the most indicates an offence under Sec.324 IPC,” Judge Deshpande stated.
The court also noted that the investigation had progressed significantly, with the complainant discharged from the hospital and present during court proceedings. The court expressed concern about the prolonged detention of the accused without a clear timeline for the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet.
“Even complainant has been discharged way back and he was present in the Court many previous occasions to watch CCTV footage recorded. In this background I strongly feel that there is no necessity to keep the accused behind bars hereafter,” Judge Deshpande stated.
Consequently, the court granted bail to Sujeet Prakash Sawant, ordering his release upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 15,000 and a surety bond of the same amount.
The court imposed several conditions, including that Sawant must attend Nirmal Nagar Police Station weekly, must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and must not leave Mumbai without permission.
Implications and Significance:
This ruling highlights the court’s emphasis on analyzing the specific roles attributed to individual accused persons in cases involving multiple defendants. The decision underscores that bail can be granted when the accused’s role is relatively minor and the investigation has progressed significantly.
The court’s concern about prolonged detention without a clear timeline for the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that the accused’s rights are protected while also addressing the prosecution’s concerns.
The order was dated July 6, 2022, and uploaded on July 7, 2022.