Mumbai, January 4, 2024: The Mumbai Sessions Court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge N.P. Tribhuwan, has rejected the bail application of Harimohan Viswanath Samanta in connection with an attempted robbery and grievous assault case registered at Pydhonie Police Station under Crime No. 472/2023. The court found strong prima facie evidence against the accused, citing the seriousness of the offense and the possibility of witness tampering.
Case Background
The prosecution’s case revolves around an alleged violent robbery attempt that took place on December 22, 2023, targeting a gold ornament manufacturer, Sapan Manna. According to the complaint filed by Manna’s wife, Shilpa Sapan Manna, her husband was attacked near Masjid Bandar while on his way to the railway station. The attack occurred at around 6:45 p.m. in front of Hasmukh Rai Tea Stall when three unknown men approached him from behind.
One of the assailants, described as wearing a white full-sleeved shirt and jeans, restrained Manna, while another, dressed in a chocolate-colored full-sleeved shirt and blue jeans, inflicted multiple stab wounds on his stomach and hands. The assailants attempted to rob Manna’s cash, but nearby hawkers intervened, ultimately rushing him to his factory and later to J.J. Hospital, where he remains in intensive care.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
During the bail hearing, defense counsel Sheela Gupta argued that Samanta’s arrest was based solely on the description of his attire mentioned in the FIR. She emphasized that Samanta was not captured on any CCTV footage, contending that Sections 394 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not applicable in this case. She further highlighted that Samanta had been in custody since December 22, 2023, and should be released on bail.
Conversely, Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Ranjana Budhwant opposed the bail plea, stressing that Manna had suffered grievous injuries, underwent stomach surgery, and remained hospitalized in the ICU. She pointed out that another accused, Irshad Ahsanullah Khan, was apprehended at the crime scene and had disclosed Samanta’s involvement. Furthermore, call records revealed communication between Samanta and Irshad before and after the attack, strengthening the case against him.
Investigators also established that both Manna and Samanta operated gold ornament manufacturing businesses in the same building. Given Samanta’s knowledge of Manna’s stock of gold and cash, the prosecution argued that he played a key role in planning the attack.
Court’s Rationale for Bail Denial
After considering the arguments from both sides, Judge Tribhuwan observed that Sections 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) and 398 (attempting to commit robbery while armed with a deadly weapon) of the IPC were applicable.
Legal Provisions Considered:
- Section 394 IPC: States that if any person voluntarily causes hurt while committing or attempting robbery, they may face life imprisonment or up to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
- Section 398 IPC: Mandates a minimum sentence of seven years if the offender attempts robbery or dacoity while armed with a deadly weapon.
The court noted that Manna remained in critical condition, which further justified continued detention. Additionally, the ongoing investigation, coupled with the potential threat to prosecution witnesses, made bail inadvisable at this stage.
Final Order
Concluding that granting bail could compromise the integrity of the investigation, the court rejected Samanta’s bail plea. The order, signed and uploaded on January 4, 2024, by Judge Tribhuwan, reinforced the seriousness of the charges and the weight of the evidence against the accused.
The case continues to be under investigation, with authorities seeking further corroboration and potential links to other suspects. As the legal proceedings unfold, law enforcement remains vigilant to ensure justice for the victim and a fair trial for the accused.