Mumbai, February 9, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Sangita Ravi Pardeshi, accused in an attempt to murder case. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. U.J. More, presiding over Court Room No. 58, denied the bail application (Bail Application No. 108 of 2022), citing CCTV footage and eyewitness statements implicating the accused.

Pardeshi was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 402 of 2021, registered at Azad Maidan Police Station, for an offense under section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, on September 24, 2021, Woman Police Havildar Pusha Muralidar Chaure, while on patrol, found a grievously injured man, Vijay Haribhau Borse, on a footpath. Investigations revealed that Pardeshi had assaulted Borse with a paver block.

Defense Arguments:

Pardeshi, through her advocate Ravi Kumar Mishra, argued that she was falsely implicated and had no connection to Borse. She claimed that Borse had no right to sleep at her “sleeping place” on the footpath without her consent. She emphasized that this was her second bail application, the first after the charge sheet was filed, and that she was a woman with no criminal background.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail application. They argued that Pardeshi had attempted to kill Borse with a paver block, which was seized with blood stains. They also argued that Pardeshi had no permanent residence and that witness statements were yet to be recorded. They highlighted that her first bail application was rejected on merits.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge More, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• CCTV Footage and Eyewitness Statements: The court noted that the statement of informant Pusha Muralidar Chaure, along with other witnesses like Osama Isaa Jagarala and Vikrant Valate, suggested that the crime was recorded on CCTV. The footage allegedly showed a woman in a salwar suit lifting a paver block and assaulting Borse twice on the head.
• Intention and Knowledge: The court concluded that the evidence suggested Pardeshi’s intention and knowledge to commit murder.
• Tampering and Flight Risk: The court expressed concerns about Pardeshi tampering with evidence and fleeing if released on bail, especially before eyewitness testimonies were recorded.
• Seriousness of Offense: The court highlighted the seriousness of the offense under section 307 of the IPC.
• Lack of Local Address: The court noted that Pardeshi had no local address or documentary proof of residence.

Judge More concluded that, considering the facts and circumstances, it was not appropriate to release Pardeshi on bail.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• CCTV Footage and Eyewitness Testimony: The court gave significant weight to the alleged CCTV footage and eyewitness statements.
• Intention to Commit Murder: The court considered the evidence suggesting the accused’s intention to commit murder.
• Risk of Tampering and Flight: The court considered the risk of the accused tampering with evidence and fleeing.
• Seriousness of Offense: The court considered the seriousness of the offense.
• Lack of Permanent Residence: The court considered the lack of a permanent address as a factor.

This ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in serious offenses like attempt to murder, particularly when there is strong evidence implicating the accused and concerns about witness safety and flight risk.