Mumbai, March 14, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has rejected the second bail application of Samuvel Mahamani Dravid, accused in an attempt to murder case. Additional Sessions Judge V.M. Sundale, presiding over Court Room No. 27, denied the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 451 of 2024), citing the absence of any substantial change in circumstances and the seriousness of the offense.

Dravid was arrested in connection with Crime No. 747/987 of 2023, registered at Vakola Police Station, for offenses under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code¹ (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, Dravid and his co-accused committed house trespass and stabbed the victim, Rajeshwari Arjun, and her two daughters with knives and wooden bamboo, attempting to murder them. The motive was a previous property dispute.

Defense Arguments:

Dravid, through his advocate B.T. Dravidar, filed a second bail application, primarily arguing that the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP V.C. Malankar, opposed the bail application. They argued that Dravid and his co-accused had committed house trespass and stabbed the victims due to a property dispute. They highlighted that Dravid’s clothes were collected from the crime scene, and the weapon (knife) was recovered from the co-accused’s house. They emphasized Dravid’s active participation in the offense and expressed concerns about him tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, committing similar offenses, and fleeing justice if released on bail.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Rejection of First Bail Application: The court noted that Dravid’s first bail application was rejected on December 13, 2023.
• No Substantial Change in Circumstances: The court found that the filing of the charge sheet did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances.
• Specific Allegations and Role: The court noted that Dravid’s name and role were specifically mentioned in the FIR.
• Victim Statements: The court considered the victim’s statements, which corroborated the allegations.
• Medical Evidence: The court highlighted the medical certificates showing grievous injuries to the victim and one of her daughters.
• Threats Post-Offense: The court noted that Dravid’s mother had threatened the victims after the offense.
• Minor Victims: The court emphasized that the victim’s daughters were minors.
• Apprehensions Well-Founded: The court found the prosecution’s apprehensions about Dravid tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses to be well-founded.

Judge Sundale concluded that, considering the nature of the offense and other aspects, Dravid was not entitled to bail.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Change in Circumstances: The court stressed that a second bail application requires a substantial change in circumstances.
• Seriousness of Offense: The court considered the seriousness of the offense, including the use of weapons and the attempt to murder.
• Victim Statements and Medical Evidence: The court relied on the victim’s statements and medical certificates to assess the severity of the crime.
• Threats and Minor Victims: The court considered the threats issued to the victims and the fact that the victims were minors.
• Apprehensions about Tampering and Influence: The court considered the prosecution’s apprehensions about the accused tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

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 there are concerns about witness safety and evidence tampering.