Mumbai, February 22, 2024 – Deepak Jaikishan Sharma @ Magic, an accused with a significant criminal history, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge V.M. Sundale allowed Sharma’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 411 of 2024), citing the informant’s no-objection and the completion of the investigation.

Sharma was arrested in connection with Crime No. 105/2024, registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)¹ of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that Sharma and his co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention, caused hurt to the informant using a wooden stick and threatened to kill him.

Defense Arguments:

Sharma’s advocate, Ravi Dwivedi, argued that the investigation was complete, and the weapon of offense had already been recovered. He emphasized that Sharma’s presence was no longer required for any recovery or discovery.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Ramesh Siroya, strongly opposed the bail, highlighting Sharma’s extensive criminal record, including 11 serious crimes and a conviction in Crime No. 220/2013, which involved murder, organized crime, and arms act violations. They argued that Sharma had breached the bail conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in the previous case and that he was a terror in the vicinity.

Informant’s Stance:

The informant, Om Rameshwar Bagoria, appeared through his advocate, Shrishti Tiwari, and filed an affidavit stating that he had no objection to Sharma being released on bail.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Sundale, after reviewing the record and hearing the arguments, noted that the investigation was almost complete, and the weapon had been recovered. He acknowledged Sharma’s criminal history and the breach of bail conditions in the previous case. However, he also considered the informant’s no-objection and the fact that Sharma’s presence was not required for further investigation.

The court recognized the seriousness of the offenses and the potential apprehension raised by the prosecution. However, it concluded that keeping Sharma in custody indefinitely was not justified, especially considering the informant’s stance. The court decided to grant bail, subject to stringent conditions, to address the prosecution’s concerns.

Conditions of Bail:

Judge Sundale granted Sharma bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He and his sureties must provide their mobile numbers, email addresses, and residence documents.
• He must not directly or indirectly influence or threaten any person acquainted with the case.
• He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• He must furnish surety within four weeks of his release, failing which his provisional cash bail will be forfeited.
• Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of his bail.
• Bail must be furnished before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s consideration of the informant’s no-objection in granting bail, even in cases involving accused with significant criminal records. The court’s decision reflects a balancing act between the rights of the accused and the concerns of the prosecution, with a focus on ensuring the integrity of the investigation and preventing witness tampering. The imposition of stringent conditions underscores the court’s awareness of the potential risks associated with releasing a person with a history of serious offenses.