Mumbai, April 25, 2024 – Parag Arun Gohil’s bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar (Court Room No. 37) in connection with an attempted murder case. The decision was rendered on April 23, 2024.

Gohil is an accused in C.R. No. 186/2024, registered at the Antop Hill Police Station, for offenses under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Background and Allegations:

The prosecution alleges that on April 6, 2024, between 5:00 a.m. and 5:45 a.m., an unknown individual entered the complainant’s son’s residence and fired at him, causing injury. During the investigation, it was revealed that Gohil was acquainted with the main accused and had allegedly provided the firearm used in the attack. The firearm was also reportedly kept with Gohil after the incident. The prosecution presented CDR (Call Detail Records), SDR (Subscriber Detail Records), CCTV footage, and photographs to support their claims, indicating Gohil’s presence with the main accused.

Arguments Presented:

Advocate Sharikh M. Khan, representing Gohil, argued that Gohil had merely handed over Rs. 7 lakhs to the main accused and was not present at the scene of the crime. He also pointed out that the FIR mentioned Santaji Gaikwad as the purchaser of the weapon, who had died in 2021. He asserted that Gohil was unaware of the main accused’s transactions and that his role was not clearly defined in the FIR.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Abhijeet Gondwal, representing the State, opposed the bail, stating that Gohil had supplied the firearm to the co-accused and that the weapon was kept with him after the incident. He also highlighted financial transactions between Gohil and the co-accused and expressed concerns about absconding, tampering with evidence, and threatening witnesses.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Joglekar noted that Gohil did not deny his acquaintance with the co-accused and had admitted to handing over Rs. 7 lakhs. The court emphasized that it only needed to determine if a prima facie case existed and that a detailed examination of the merits was not required at this stage.

The court highlighted Gohil’s admission of handing over the money in a hotel, which was corroborated by CCTV footage. The court stated that Gohil’s presence was required for confrontation with the co-accused, especially given his admitted role. The court found that custodial interrogation was necessary.

The court also expressed concern that granting bail would derail the ongoing investigation, which was at a nascent stage.

Order Details:

The bail application was rejected and disposed of. The order was dictated on April 23, 2024, transcribed on the same day, and signed on April 25, 2024. The certified copy was uploaded on April 25, 2024, at 5:07 p.m.

This decision reflects the court’s consideration of Gohil’s alleged role in supplying the firearm, his admitted financial transactions with the co-accused, and the need for custodial interrogation to further the investigation.