Mumbai, May 25, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge G.B. Gurao granted bail to Ravishankar Vishnu Prasad Mourya, a 53-year-old panseller, in a case involving the possession of banned gutkha. The court cited the completed investigation and Mourya’s clear antecedents as reasons for granting bail.

Mourya was arrested in connection with Crime No. 302/2022, registered at R.C.F. Police Station, under Sections 328 (causing harm by means of poison, etc.), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 272 (adulteration of food or drink intended for sale), and 273 (sale of noxious food or drink), read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act.

According to the FIR, Mourya was found in possession of “Nazar gutkha” and “Vimal Panmasala Gutkha,” with a total value of Rs. 27,320, during a police raid on his panshop in Ashoknagar, Chembur. Samples were taken, a panchnama was prepared, and Mourya was arrested.

Mourya, through his advocate S.R. Kanojia, sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that he was innocent and falsely implicated. Kanojia contended that the alleged recovery had already been made, and there was no need for further custodial interrogation. She emphasized that Mourya was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ramesh Siroya, opposed the bail, arguing that a co-accused was yet to be arrested and that Mourya might abscond if released.

Judge Gurao, after reviewing the FIR and the prosecution’s submissions, noted that the major part of the investigation was complete, there were no further recoveries or discoveries to be made from Mourya, and he was a permanent resident with clear antecedents.

“From the say of prosecution, it reveals that major part of the investigation is completed. Now there is no recovery or discovery at the instance of accused. He is permanent resident of given address. His antecedents are clear. Hence, the accused is entitled for bail,” Judge Gurao stated in his order.

Consequently, the court granted Mourya bail, ordering him to execute a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount. The court also imposed the following conditions:

• Mourya must attend the concerned police station as and when reasonably required by the investigating officer until further orders and cooperate with the investigation.
• Mourya must remain present on each and every date in court unless exempted from appearance.
• Mourya must not pressurize the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
• Mourya must not commit any offense while on bail.
• Mourya must furnish his correct address to the investigating officer.

“Applicant/Accused namely Ravishankar Vishnu Prasad Mourya in CR.No.302 of 2022 under Sections 328, 188, 272, 273, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act registered at R.C.F. Police Station be released on his executing P.R. Bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand only) with one or more sureties in the like amount on the conditions that: a) He shall attend concerned police station as and when reasonably required by investigating officer till further orders and co-operate with the investigation. b) He shall remain present on each and every date in the Court unless he is exempt from appearance. c) He shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. d) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. e) He shall furnish his correct address to the Investigating Officer,” Judge Gurao ordered.

The court also allowed provisional cash bail of Rs. 20,000 for four weeks, within which Mourya was required to furnish the surety.

The order was dictated on May 23, 2022, transcribed on May 25, 2022, signed on May 25, 2022, and uploaded on the same day, as certified by stenographer Pradnya S. Naik.

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach in considering the completion of investigations and the antecedents of the accused when deciding bail applications in cases involving the possession of banned substances. It also underscores the court’s role in balancing the rights of the accused with the imperatives of law enforcement.