Mumbai, January 20, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Sagar Manohar Pol, accused in an assault on a public servant case. Additional Sessions Judge M.G. Deshpande, presiding over Court Room No. 16, allowed Pol’s bail application (Bail Application No. 83 of 2022), citing the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet.

Pol was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 386/2021, registered at Shau Nagar Police Station, for offenses under sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty),¹ 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian² Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the FIR, on November 7, 2021, at around 1:03 AM, a woman police constable (WPC) Vidya Mahendra Gangurde and her driver were patrolling the Shau Nagar area when they were directed to investigate a complaint about loud music being played at Shau Nagar Maidan. Upon reaching the spot, they found a group of people playing loud music and dancing. When they asked them to stop, a quarrel ensued. A woman, who appeared to be drunk, allegedly abused and assaulted WPC Gangurde, causing a fracture to her nose. Pol, along with another male, was alleged to have been present and involved in the altercation.

Defense Arguments:

Pol, through his advocate Bhaskar J. Sarwade, argued that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and he was innocent. He claimed he had not committed any offense or instigated anyone and had no prior criminal record.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Rashmi Tendulkar, opposed the bail application. They argued that Pol was involved in the assault on a public servant, which resulted in a nose fracture to WPC Gangurde. They also expressed concerns that if granted bail, he would threaten the complainant and witnesses.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Completion of Investigation: The court noted that the charge sheet had been filed, indicating the investigation was complete.
• Length of Detention: The court considered the length of Pol’s detention and the uncertainty of when the trial would commence and conclude.
• Police Witnesses: The court acknowledged that the injured and other prosecution witnesses were police personnel, reducing the possibility of them being pressured by the accused.
• Dependents: The court considered that Pol had dependents.
• Punishment for Offense: The court noted that the offense under Section 353 of the IPC carries a maximum punishment of five years.
• Prima Facie Case: The court concluded that Pol had made out a strong prima facie case for bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Pol bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of ₹15,000 with a surety of the same amount.
• He must not abscond and must attend all court hearings.
• He must not pressure or threaten the complainant or prosecution witnesses.
• He must not leave Mumbai without prior permission from the trial court.
• He is granted provisional cash bail of ₹15,000 for a period of four weeks.
• Bail must be furnished before the court of first instance.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Completion of Investigation: The court considered the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet as a significant factor in granting bail.
• Length of Detention: The court considered the length of the accused’s detention and the uncertainty of the trial’s timeline.
• Police Witnesses: The court acknowledged the reduced risk of witness tampering due to the witnesses being police personnel.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.

This ruling underscores the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly in cases where the investigation is complete and the risk of witness tampering is low.