Mumbai, March 1, 2024 – In a case of alleged attempted murder, the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has granted bail to one accused, , while denying bail to another, Ganesh Shahaji Khandagale. Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar, presiding over Court Room No. 24, delivered the order in Bail Application No. 452 of 2024, highlighting the differing roles of the accused in the alleged crime.
The case stems from C.R. No. 684/2023, registered at R.C.F. Police Station, where the accused were charged under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 341 (wrongful restraint), 109 (abetment), read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections 37(1)(A), 135, and 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
The Allegations and FIR:
According to the First Information Report (FIR) filed by complainant Aakash Babasaheb Londhe, on November 20, 2023, around midnight, he was returning home on his motorcycle when he was chased and intercepted by the accused. The FIR alleges that Rahul Katalkar and Dadya Anand Khandagale physically restrained Londhe, while Ganesh Khandagale verbally abused him and attacked him with a sharp-edged weapon, specifically a sickle, on the head, attempting to kill him. Rahul and Dadya also allegedly assaulted Londhe with fist blows.
Defense Arguments:
The applicants, Rahul Katalkar and Ganesh Khandagale, through their advocate Mr. Atar L.H., argued that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the case. They pointed out that the charge sheet had been filed, a co-accused had been granted bail, and their further custody was unnecessary. They stated their readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
Prosecution’s Objections:
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP O.S. Maraskolhe, opposed the bail application. They argued that the accused were habitual offenders and that granting them bail would lead to similar offenses and tampering with evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
Judge Salgar, after considering the FIR and the charge sheet, differentiated between the roles of the two applicants:
- Rahul Katalkar:
- His role, as per the FIR, was limited to restraining and assaulting the complainant with fist blows.
- He was not accused of using any weapons or attempting to kill the complainant.
- Considering the limited nature of his alleged involvement and the filing of the charge sheet, the court found him eligible for bail.
- Ganesh Khandagale:
- He was the principal accused, alleged to have inflicted a blow with a sickle on the complainant’s head, attempting to murder him.
- The sickle was recovered based on his disclosure statement.
- Witnesses and the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. corroborated his involvement.
- He also had a criminal record.
- Given the severity of his alleged actions and his criminal history, the court denied him bail.
Conditions of Bail for Rahul Katalkar:
The court granted bail to Rahul Katalkar on the following conditions:
- He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹25,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
- He must attend all court hearings.
- He and his surety must provide their residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses to the investigating officer and notify them of any changes.
- He must not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
- He must not leave India without prior court permission.
- Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.
- Provisional cash bail is granted for 4 weeks.
- Bail before the trial court.
Significance of the Order:
This order illustrates the court’s careful consideration of individual roles in a crime when deciding on bail applications. It emphasizes that:
- The severity of the alleged offense and the accused’s direct involvement are crucial factors.
- Criminal antecedents play a significant role in bail decisions.
- Even in cases involving multiple accused, the court assesses each individual’s culpability separately.
- The court will impose strict conditions to ensure the accused attends trial.