Mumbai, Maharashtra – March 15, 2024 – Sahil Suraj Pawar has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with an attempted murder case registered at the Nirmal Nagar Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Pawar was arrested and charged under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504¹ (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace),² and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code³ (IPC), in connection with C.R. No. 01/2024.

The prosecution alleged that Pawar and co-accused Ganesh @ Bapat Morya voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the informant using a cement block and attempted to murder him.

Arguments Presented:

Pawar, through his advocate Vijay Thakur h/f Shri Rathod, argued that:

• His name was not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR).
• The main allegations of causing injury with a cement block were against co-accused Ganesh @ Bapat Morya.
• He was present at the scene but did not cause any injury.
• His presence was not required for any recovery or discovery.
• There was no record of past criminal antecedents.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) B.G. Rajput, opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• Pawar confessed to committing the offense.
• The informant and witnesses implicated him in their statements.
• The offense was serious, and the investigation was ongoing.
• Pawar had no permanent address in Mumbai, raising the risk of him pressuring witnesses or absconding.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge V.M. Sundale granted bail to Pawar. The court considered the following factors:

• Absence of Name in FIR: Pawar’s name was not mentioned in the initial FIR.
• Limited Role: The main allegations of causing injury with a cement block were against co-accused Ganesh @ Bapat Morya.
• No Direct Injury: While present at the scene, Pawar did not cause any direct injury to the informant.
• No Necessity for Custodial Interrogation: Pawar was arrested and taken into judicial custody on the same day, indicating that his presence was not required for any recovery or discovery.
• Lack of Criminal Antecedents: There was no record of Pawar’s past criminal antecedents.
• Conditions to Mitigate Apprehensions: The court believed that imposing stringent conditions could address the prosecution’s apprehensions.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Sahil Suraj Pawar on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• Contact Information: He and his surety must provide their mobile numbers, email addresses, and documents proving their place of residence.
• No Inducement or Threats: He must not directly or indirectly influence witnesses.
• No Leaving India: He must not leave India without the court’s permission.
• Police Station Attendance: He must attend the Nirmal Nagar Police Station once a week (every Monday between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM) until the charge sheet is filed and cooperate with the investigation.
• Provisional Cash Bail: Provisional cash bail of the same amount was allowed, with the condition to furnish surety within four weeks, failing which the cash bail would be forfeited.
• Bail Cancellation: Breach of any condition would result in bail cancellation.
• Bail Execution: The bail must be executed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the specific role attributed to the accused, the absence of direct injury, and the progress of the investigation when determining bail applications. The court’s decision to grant bail reflects its assessment that further detention was unnecessary, given Pawar’s limited role and the absence of direct injury. The court also balanced the rights of the accused with the need to ensure their presence for trial and prevent any tampering with evidence by imposing stringent conditions. The fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR, and the main allegations were against a co-accused, were major factors in the court granting bail.