Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 10, 2024 – Rakeshkumar Jiyalal Yadav’s bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in connection with an assault case registered at the Wadala T.T. Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Yadav was arrested and charged under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous¹ weapons or means), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation),² 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal³ Code (IPC), in connection with C.R. No. 173/2024.

The prosecution alleged that Yadav, along with co-accused Zinat and others, assaulted the complainant and his family with weapons, causing injuries. Yadav was specifically accused of assaulting the complainant on the head.

Arguments Presented:

Yadav, through his advocate Manoj R. Gowd, argued that:

• He was falsely implicated.
• There were inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements regarding who used a bamboo to assault him.
• The charges under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC were not applicable.
• The investigation was substantially complete, and the victim had been discharged from the hospital.
• Yadav, being a government servant, did not require further incarceration.
• A co-accused had been granted bail.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Abhijeet Gondwal, opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• Yadav was the main assailant and had a clearly defined role.
• The choice of the head as the target was relevant.
• Yadav was required for further confrontation.
• There was a risk of Yadav absconding, tampering with evidence, and threatening witnesses.
• The investigation regarding the weapons used was ongoing.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar rejected Yadav’s bail application. The court considered the following factors:

• Specific Allegation of Head Injury: The complainant specifically alleged that Yadav assaulted him on the head.
• Prior Grudge: The complainant alleged that the assault was motivated by a prior grudge.
• Yadav’s Presence at the Scene: Yadav did not deny his presence at the scene.
• No Parity with Co-accused: The court found no parity between Yadav’s role and that of the co-accused who was granted bail, as the co-accused was not alleged to have assaulted anyone.
• Ongoing Investigation: The investigation regarding the weapons used was ongoing.
• Prima Facie Case: The court found that a prima facie case existed against Yadav.
• Risk of Derailing Investigation: Granting bail would derail the ongoing investigation.

The court concluded that Yadav was not entitled to bail.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the specific allegations against the accused, the progress of the investigation, and the principle of parity when determining bail applications. The court’s emphasis on the specific allegation of head injury and the ongoing investigation demonstrates a cautious approach to bail decisions in serious assault cases. The court also made it clear that simply because one co-accused was granted bail, doesn’t mean all accused will be granted bail, especially when their roles in the crime are drastically different.