Mumbai, September 7th, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has rejected the bail applications of Darshan Chandrakant Chavan (regular bail), Ganesh Suresh Tadge (anticipatory bail), and Mitesh Suresh Makwana (anticipatory bail), who were accused in an assault case. The court, presided over by In-charge Additional Sessions Judge Vijay S. Hingne, denied the bail, citing the severity of the victim’s injuries and the absconding status of two of the accused.
The case stems from a complaint lodged by Devanand Konduskar on July 25th, 2022, alleging that on July 24th, 2022, Darshan Chavan, Mitesh Makwana, and Ganesh Tadge, under the influence of alcohol, assaulted him at his workplace. The complainant alleged that Darshan Chavan struck him on the head with an iron rod, causing severe injuries that required hospitalization. Crime No. 631/2022 was registered under Sections 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of1 the peace), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2 Later, Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC was added to the case.
Darshan Chavan was arrested, while Ganesh Tadge and Mitesh Makwana were absconding.
The applicants, through their lawyer Advocate Dilip P. Parmar, sought bail on the grounds that they were falsely implicated, there were discrepancies in the complainant’s account of the weapon and the number of assailants, the complainant visited multiple hospitals for a “favorable” medical report, and they had no prior criminal record.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ashwini Raikar, and the intervenor, represented by Advocate Pradeep Sawant, opposed the bail, citing the severe head injury sustained by the victim, the ongoing investigation, and the risk of the accused absconding or influencing witnesses.
Judge Hingne, in his order, addressed each bail application separately.
Regarding Darshan Chandrakant Chavan’s Regular Bail Application:
The court noted that the FIR was filed within six hours of the incident, the victim identified all three accused, and the assault involved an iron rod to the head, a vital organ.
“The statements points active role of this applicant in said attack. Hence, apprehension raised by prosecution that, the accused / applicant if released, might commit similar offenses against the victim or might abscond, cannot be overlooked,” Judge Hingne stated.
Therefore, the court denied Darshan Chavan’s bail.
Regarding Ganesh Tadge and Mitesh Makwana’s Anticipatory Bail Applications:
The court acknowledged the allegations that they assaulted the victim with fists and blows. However, the court emphasized that the victim identified them, their role in the incident was active, and they were absconding.
“Further, these applicants were absconding from the time of occurrence of incident. So, considering nature of offense and aspect pertaining to common intention, prosecution cannot be denied an opportunity to investigate these applicants,” Judge Hingne stated. “The applicant have already shown the tendency to ran away from the trial. Therefore, no case is made out by applicants for relief of anticipatory bail.”
Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail applications of Ganesh Tadge and Mitesh Makwana.
The court’s decision underscores the severity of the offense and the accused’s conduct in denying bail. The police investigation will continue.