Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 5, 2022 – Chandrashekar Swami, a 56-year-old contractor, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in a case involving allegations of assaulting public servants during an encroachment removal drive. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge U.M. Padwad, granted bail, stating that further detention of the accused was not necessary.

Swami was arrested in connection with Crime No. 244/2022, registered at the Santacruz Police Station, and was charged under sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace)¹ of the Indian Penal Code² (IPC).

Background of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that Swami assaulted public servants who were carrying out their duty of removing encroachments. Swami reportedly opposed their actions and engaged in a scuffle with them.

Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:

Mr. S.R. Pasbola, representing Swami, argued for his client’s release on bail.

Prosecution’s Objections:

Mr. D.M. Lade, representing the State, presented the prosecution’s case and opposed the bail application.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Padwad, after reviewing the application, the prosecution’s reply, and the case records, concluded that further detention of Swami was not necessary given the facts and circumstances of the case.

Bail Conditions:

The court granted bail to Swami, subject to the following conditions:

• Swami must furnish a Personal Bond (P.B.) and a Surety Bond (S.B.) of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He must attend the Santacruz Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer until the charge sheet is filed.
• He must not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or evidence in any manner.
• Provisional cash bail of the same amount (Rs. 25,000) was allowed. Swami must furnish the surety within four weeks from the date of release, failing which the cash bail would be forfeited.
• The bail must be furnished before the learned committing court.

Outcome:

The court’s decision reflects a consideration of the specific circumstances of the case and a determination that continued detention was not warranted. The conditions imposed aim to ensure Swami’s cooperation with the investigation and prevent any potential interference with the legal process. The court’s order also highlights the balance between the severity of the alleged offenses and the individual’s right to liberty.