Mumbai, February 23, 2024: In a significant ruling, the Sessions Court in Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge S.N. Patil, rejected the bail application of Joy Jessy Mendosa (Sundar), a 32-year-old businessman, who was accused of attempted murder and other serious offenses. The case was registered at Khar Police Station under Sections 307, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on January 20, 2024, at around 7:45 p.m. The accused allegedly assaulted one Dhunash, prompting the informant to intervene in an attempt to protect the victim. Enraged, the accused reportedly attacked the informant with a broken glass bottle, inflicting grievous injuries on his abdomen. The accused also allegedly threatened the informant, leading to the registration of FIR No. 931/2023 at Khar Police Station.

Arguments by the Defense

The defense, represented by Advocate Siddique on behalf of Advocate Abhishek Mishra, sought bail on several grounds:

• The accused was falsely implicated in the case.
• He is a permanent resident of Mumbai.
• The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed.
• There was an unexplained delay of over 13 hours in registering the FIR.
• No weapon or incriminating material was recovered from the accused.
• The accused was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the court.

The defense also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P., which held that an individual’s criminal antecedents alone cannot be the sole reason for denying bail.

Prosecution’s Opposition

Opposing the bail plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Ashwini Rayakar argued that:

• The accused is a habitual offender with 11 prior cases registered against him at Khar Police Station.
• He had previously been externed from Mumbai but violated the order and returned to commit another crime.
• If released, he posed a risk of absconding and committing similar offenses.

Court’s Observations and Verdict

After considering the arguments, the court noted that the accused had a history of criminal activities and had defied an externment order by re-entering Mumbai’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court found that the informant had suffered a grievous stab injury measuring 3×1 cm on the left sub-coastal region, as per a medical report from K.B. Bhabha Hospital.

Given the severity of the charges under Section 307 of the IPC, which carries a potential life sentence, the court concluded that granting bail would not be in the interest of justice. The judge ruled that the accused’s potential to flee and reoffend made him ineligible for bail at this stage.

Conclusion

Dismissing the bail plea, Judge S.N. Patil ruled: “Considering the nature of the offense, the role played by the accused, and the serious nature of injury inflicted on the informant, the accused is not entitled to be released on bail.”

As a result, the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 305 of 2024) was officially rejected, and the accused remains in judicial custody pending further proceedings.