Mumbai, July 4, 2022 – Vyankatesh Ravi Devendra @ Vengadesh, Vicky @ Vighnesh Ravi Devendra, Surya Palanniswami Devendra, Ganesh Laxman Devendra, Krishna Ganpati Devendra, Avinash Abhimannyu Devendra, Akshay Karan Devendra, Sarvana Velu Devendra, and Velu Muniappan Devendra, accused of attempted murder and assault, have been granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge M.S. Kulkarni. The court cited the lack of specific roles attributed to the accused, the absence of medical evidence detailing the severity of injuries, and the completion of the initial investigation as reasons for granting bail.

The nine accused were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 662/2022 registered at Worli Police Station, Mumbai. They were charged under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object),¹ 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with intent² to provoke breach of the peace), and 506-II (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code³ (IPC), as well as Sections 37(1)(A) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Prosecution’s Case:

The complainant alleged that the accused assaulted him, his family, and others with hands, kicks, blows, sticks, and iron rods during a religious ceremony. They also allegedly threatened bystanders who attempted to intervene.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate A.R. Singh, representing the accused, argued that they were falsely implicated, no specific roles were attributed to them, they had permanent residences in Mumbai, and the investigation was complete. He also noted that the complainant was a relative of the accused.

Prosecution’s Stance:

APP Ashwini Raykar, representing the State, opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused would pressurize witnesses, interfere with the investigation, and flee from justice, given their familial and residential proximity to the complainant.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Kulkarni noted the following key points:

• Lack of Specific Roles: Neither the FIR nor witness statements attributed specific roles to the accused.
• Absence of Medical Evidence: The prosecution did not provide medical certificates detailing the severity of the victims’ injuries.
• Completion of Initial Investigation: The accused were arrested on May 31, 2022, and the initial investigation appeared to be complete.
• Familial Relationship: The complainant and accused were relatives.

“Though the prosecution has strongly objected to grant bail to the applicants/accused the prosecution has not put on record medical certificate of the victims to understand the gravity of offence. No specific role has been attributed to the applicants either in FIR or in statement of the witnesses. In such situation applicants/accused are entitled for bail. But to secure their presence for inquiry and trial as they hail from Tamil Nadu, there is need to ask them to furnish heavy surety amount. Hence, I pass following order,” Judge Kulkarni stated in his order.

Conditions of Bail:

The accused were granted bail on the following conditions:

• They must each furnish a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond and Surety Bond (SB) of Rs. 30,000 with one or more sureties.
• Provisional cash bail of the like amount is allowed, and they must furnish surety within four weeks.
• They must attend Worli Police Station every Monday between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. until the charge sheet is filed and cooperate with the investigation.
• They must not tamper with evidence.
• Bail to be furnished before the lower court.

Implications:

This decision highlights the court’s emphasis on the lack of specific roles attributed to the accused and the absence of crucial medical evidence in serious assault cases. The court’s decision to grant bail, despite the serious charges, indicates a cautious approach, balancing the accused’s right to liberty with the need for a fair investigation and trial. The high surety amount reflects the court’s concern about securing the accused’s presence, given their origins in Tamil Nadu. The required police station attendance until filing of the charge sheet ensures continued cooperation with the investigation.