Mumbai, Maharashtra – January 19, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has denied bail to Madhav Mukund Phadtare, accused of attempted murder and other offenses. Additional Sessions Judge R.R. Patare (C.R. No. 1) rejected Bail Application No. 39 of 2024, related to C.R. No. 529/2023 registered with N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station.
Madhav Mukund Phadtare, 35, was arrested and charged under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(2)1 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian2 Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background:
The case originated from a report filed by Madhav Mukund Phadtare himself. He stated that on September 13, 2023, upon returning home, he found his wife Rama crying and noticed blood on her T-shirt. He also observed an injury on his mother’s forehead. He took his wife and mother to the police station.
Rama, Phadtare’s wife, disclosed that earlier that evening, Phadtare’s uncle Charudatta had trespassed into their home, abused her, and assaulted her. She also reported that when she resisted, Charudatta assaulted Phadtare’s mother. Additionally, she alleged that Phadtare’s cousin brother, Sridhar, had assaulted her with a knife on her chest.
Arguments and Court’s Reasoning:
Phadtare’s counsel, Adv. Satish Muley, argued that his client was falsely implicated and innocent. He contended that the FIR did not sufficiently establish an offense under Section 307 of the IPC. He emphasized that Phadtare was willing to abide by bail conditions and that his custodial interrogation was unnecessary. He also pointed out that co-accused Charudatta had been granted bail by the High Court.
Adv. Muley attempted to highlight inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the timing of the incident and contradictory statements from witnesses. He also argued that the medical report indicated simple injuries. He cited several case laws in support of his arguments.
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Siroya, opposed the bail, asserting that the allegations were serious and that there was evidence connecting Phadtare to the offense. They expressed concerns about potential tampering with evidence.
The intervener, the original complainant (Shridhar Charudatta Phadtare), also opposed the bail.
The court, after reviewing the application and hearing both sides, noted the serious nature of the allegations. “It is the allegation of prosecution that present applicants/accused committed house trespass along with co-accused and assaulted the wife and mother of informant. It is alleged that applicants/accused caused injury on the chest of wife of informant by knife,” Judge Patare stated.
The court also emphasized the evidence connecting Phadtare to the offense and the potential for tampering with evidence. “There is evidence to connect accused in the committed of offence. Tampering of evidence cannot be ruled out as pointed out by APP for State,” Judge Patare noted.
The court distinguished the present case from the cited case laws and highlighted the specific role attributed to Phadtare. “The role attributed to the present applicant/accused is altogether different. No allegation are made against co-accused regarding assault by knife. Allegations are made by applicant /accused has made assault by knife on vital part of body. In such circumstances applicant/accused cannot be enlarged on bail,” Judge Patare concluded.
Decision:
Judge Patare rejected the bail application, citing the serious and grave nature of the allegations, the evidence connecting Phadtare to the offense, and the potential for tampering with evidence. The certified copy of the judgment was issued on January 19, 2024. This decision underscores the court’s consideration of the severity of the offense and the strength of the evidence when denying bail.