Mumbai, May 13, 2024 – Akash Sukhdev Gade and Rushikesh Ramu Chougule have been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in a case involving robbery and extortion. Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar (Court Room No. 24) issued the order on May 13, 2024.
Gade and Chougule were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 180/2024, registered at the Trombay Police Station, for offenses under Sections 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 387 (putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace),1 506(2) (criminal intimidation) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code2 (IPC).
Background and Allegations:
The complainant alleged that Gade, Chougule, and other accused persons came to his construction site and demanded Rs. 5,000. They assaulted him and Gade allegedly forcibly removed Rs. 3,000 by showing a knife. On a subsequent occasion, they allegedly assaulted laborers at the site, stole a cement gunny bag, and threatened the complainant.
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Sanjay Rathod, representing Gade and Chougule, argued that they were falsely implicated, there was a delay in filing the FIR, the complainant did not sustain grievous injuries, and there was no prima facie case against them. He also stated that they were permanent residents of Mumbai.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sachin Patil, representing the State, opposed the bail, citing the applicants’ criminal antecedents, the seriousness of the offense, and the potential for them to pressure the complainant and witnesses.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Salgar considered the FIR, which specifically mentioned the applicants’ roles. The court noted the allegations of extortion, assault, robbery, and threats made on two separate occasions.
The court emphasized that the investigation was ongoing and granting bail would hamper its completion. The court also highlighted the seriousness of the offenses, particularly Section 397 of the IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years.
The court expressed concern that granting bail in such a serious case would send a negative message to society and that the applicants might commit similar offenses.
Furthermore, the court noted that both applicants had criminal antecedents: three offenses registered against Gade and four against Chougule.
Considering the nature of the offenses, the applicants’ roles, the ongoing investigation, and their criminal antecedents, the court found it inappropriate to grant bail.
Decision:
The court rejected the bail application.
Order Details:
The order was dictated, transcribed, and signed on May 13, 2024, and uploaded on the same day at 2:00 p.m.
This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the seriousness of the offenses, the applicants’ criminal antecedents, the ongoing investigation, and the potential risks to the investigation and witnesses.