Mumbai, January 21, 2022 – Aditya Subarai Mesta, a 23-year-old man from Karnataka, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in connection with a case of harassment, defamation, and criminal intimidation. Additional Sessions Judge Sonali P. Agarwal allowed Mesta’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 91 of 2022), considering the young age of the accused, the amicable settlement between the parties, and the lack of criminal antecedents.

Mesta was arrested in connection with Crime Register No. 411 of 2021, registered at Santacruz Police Station, for offences punishable under sections 354(d) (stalking), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code¹ (IPC).

Prosecution’s Case:

According to the prosecution, Mesta had been harassing the complainant and her parents since May 2020. He allegedly made calls from various mobile numbers, sent obscene messages, and posted defamatory comments on Facebook, including threats to kill the complainant and her boyfriend.

Defense Arguments:

Mesta’s advocate, Sandeep D. Sherkhane, argued that his client was a young man of 23 and not a habitual offender. He contended that section 506(2) of the IPC was not applicable in this case. He also stated that Mesta and the complainant were relatives and had a love affair that was opposed by their families. He further submitted that the dispute had been resolved, and the complainant had no remaining grievances.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (ADPP) Meera Choudhary-Bhosale, opposed the bail, stating that the charge sheet was yet to be filed and witness statements were still being recorded.

Complainant’s Affidavit:

The complainant filed an affidavit stating that she and Mesta were relatives and that the FIR was lodged due to a misunderstanding. She confirmed that the misunderstanding had been resolved amicably out of court and that she had no objection to Mesta’s release on bail.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Agarwal considered the complainant’s affidavit, Mesta’s young age, and the lack of criminal antecedents. The court noted that the complainant had stated she had no fear of Mesta if he was released on bail. Considering the nature of the offenses and the amicable settlement, the court found that there was no purpose in keeping Mesta in custody.

Conditions of Bail:

Judge Agarwal granted Mesta bail on the following conditions:

• Mesta must furnish a personal bond (PB) and a surety bond (SB) of ₹15,000 with one or more sureties.
• He must not threaten or cause injury to the complainant.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
• He must cooperate with the police investigation.
• He must not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• He must provide his mobile number, phone number, and all addresses to the Investigating Officer and must not change or discontinue the provided mobile number until the conclusion of the trial.
• He was also granted provisional cash bail of Rs. 25,000 for a period of 3 weeks.

The court concluded that releasing Mesta on these conditions would serve the interests of justice.