Mumbai, India – February 1, 2024 – Three men, Vikas Francis Koli, Rupesh Joseph Koli, and Stevan Dominic Gonsalves, have been granted bail by a Mumbai Sessions Court in connection with an attempted murder case stemming from a cable network dispute. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, presiding over Court Room No. 30, granted bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 124 of 2024, citing the completion of the police investigation and the filing of a charge sheet.
The trio was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 232/2023 registered at Sewri Police Station, facing charges under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke1 breach of the peace), 143 (unlawful assembly), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object) of the2 Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 37(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
The Alleged Assault and Dispute:
The case revolves around a dispute between cable network operators. According to the prosecution, Nitant Koli, a cable operator and gym owner, had a partnership dispute with Nariman, Sunil Tiwari, and Viren Pandey. On December 6, 2023, a network connection fault occurred, and Nitant Koli informed Nariman.
When Nitant Koli met Nariman at Bapdeo Mandir, they were allegedly attacked by Veena Koli, Gavin Koli, Stevan Gonsalves, and Vikas Koli. Vikas Koli allegedly attacked Nitant Koli with a wooden bamboo stick, causing a bleeding injury. The group then allegedly attacked Nariman. Rupesh Koli allegedly attacked Nariman with a bamboo stick on his hands, legs, and head. Vikas Koli also allegedly showed a gun to Nitant Koli, who then fled the scene.
Defense Arguments:
The defense argued that the accused were innocent and falsely implicated. They emphasized that the accused had undergone custodial interrogation, nothing further was to be recovered from them, and they were permanent residents of their given addresses.
Prosecution Objections:
The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the accused posed a flight risk and could threaten witnesses and tamper with evidence if released.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Sasne, after reviewing the case records and hearing arguments from both sides, granted bail to the accused. The court noted that the charge sheet had been filed and that the accused had been in custody since December 2023.
“Since then they are behind bars. Further, incarceration is not necessary. If reasonable conditions securing presence of the accused for trial are imposed, they are entitled for the bail,” Judge Sasne stated in his order.
The court rejected the defense’s claim of parity with another accused, Bhaskar Uparkar, stating that the roles attributed to the present accused and Uparkar were not similar.
Bail Conditions:
The accused were granted bail on the following conditions:
- They must each furnish a personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties.
- They must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
- They must regularly attend the trial court hearings.
- They were granted provisional cash bail and must furnish sureties within four weeks.
- They must not leave India without prior permission from the court.
- Bail before the concerned Magistrate.
Implications:
This case highlights the court’s consideration of completed investigations and the accused’s period of custody when deciding on bail applications. It also underscores the court’s willingness to impose conditions to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial. The court also showed it would not grant parity, if the roles of the accused were not similar.