Mumbai, Maharashtra – May 30, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has granted bail to Amod Kanahyalal Pandey, accused of assault, harassment, and other offenses. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Sonali P. Agarwal, granted bail after considering the nature of the allegations, the absence of prior criminal records, and the circumstances of the case.
Pandey was arrested in connection with Crime No. 418/2022, registered at Vakola Police Station, under sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354D (stalking), 323 (voluntarily causing1 hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code2 (IPC).
The prosecution alleged that on May 2, 2022, Pandey, in a drunken state, came to the complainant’s house, abused and beat her, and attempted to get intimate with her.
During the bail hearing, Pandey’s advocate, Mr. Deepak Gautam, argued that his client was intentionally implicated by individuals in the vicinity, with the help of the complainant and her minor daughter. He emphasized that Pandey had a fixed place of residence and requested his release on bail.
The prosecution, represented by APP Mrs. Meera Choudhary-Bhosale, opposed the bail application, arguing that Pandey might threaten the complainant and other witnesses if released.
Judge Agarwal, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, noted that the complainant and Pandey had become friends through Facebook and used to communicate and meet each other before the alleged incident. The court also observed that there were no prior criminal antecedents against Pandey.
“Considering allegations and contentions of accused and circumstances, it appears, no purpose is going to be served by keeping accused behind the bar. Hence, it will be proper to release him on bail on some conditions,” Judge Agarwal stated in the order.
The court granted bail to Pandey on a personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 15,000, subject to the following conditions:
- He must not threaten or cause injury to the complainant.
- He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
- He must cooperate with the police investigation.
- He must attend the concerned police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer.
- He must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- He must furnish his mobile number, phone number, and all addresses to the Investigating Officer and inform them of any changes.
This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the specific circumstances of the case, balancing the need to ensure the accused’s presence during trial with the principle of personal liberty, especially in the absence of prior criminal records and considering the nature of the offences.