Mumbai, January 28, 2022 – Prakash Mallappa Pawar, 45, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in connection with a robbery and kidnapping case. Additional Sessions Judge Purushottam B. Jadhav (Court Room No. 22) rejected the bail application on January 27, 2022.
Pawar was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 13 of 2022, registered at the V.B. Nagar Police Station. He is accused of offenses under Sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 348 (wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property), 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and1 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2
Background and Allegations:
The prosecution alleges that Pawar and other accused persons went to the complainant’s house to demand the return of a hand-loan given to one Hiran. Though the incident stemmed from a prior dispute, the accused were armed with knives, assaulted the complainant, and robbed him of Rs. 3,500 and a mobile phone.
Arguments Presented:
Mr. Sudhir Khatu, representing Pawar, applied for bail, arguing that the incident was a result of a pre-existing dispute and not a premeditated robbery. He also mentioned that Pawar’s daughter’s marriage was scheduled for February 24, 2022, and there was no one to handle the wedding preparations.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) J.N. Suryawanshi opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offenses, the ongoing investigation, and the fact that other accused were still absconding.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Jadhav noted that the allegations in the FIR clearly disclosed the alleged offenses. He emphasized that the offenses under Sections 364 and 394 of the IPC were serious, carrying potential life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
The court also highlighted that the investigation was at an initial stage and that the complainant, witnesses, and accused were known to each other, raising the possibility of witness tampering.
Regarding the argument about the daughter’s marriage, the court stated that it was not a valid ground for granting regular bail.
Order Issued:
The court rejected Pawar’s bail application, concluding that it was not a fit case for granting regular bail. The order was signed on January 28, 2022, and uploaded on the same day at 3:45 p.m.
This decision underscores the court’s concern over the seriousness of the alleged offenses, the ongoing investigation, and the potential for witness tampering. The court prioritized the integrity of the investigation and the safety of witnesses over the accused’s plea for bail.