Mumbai, February 28, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Sujal Mahendra Yadav, accused in an attempted murder case. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire, presiding over Court Room No. 60, allowed Yadav’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 402 of 2024), citing his limited role in the alleged offense and the simple nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant.

Yadav was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 28 of 2024, registered at Bhandup Police Station, for offenses under sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the complainant, Manish Ramdas Dabhade, he had a relationship with the sister of co-accused Jaywant Ghadge. They had a dispute over money, leading to an assault on the sister. Subsequently, while Dabhade was on his way to work, Yadav and Ghadge allegedly attacked him with a knife. Ghadge allegedly inflicted blows on Dabhade’s head, hands, and stomach, and then both fled.

Defense Arguments:

Yadav, through his advocate Prashant Patond, denied the allegations. He argued that the FIR primarily implicated Ghadge and an unknown person. He claimed he was not involved in the alleged crime, did not possess any weapon, and that the weapon used was recovered from Ghadge. He was arrested on January 16, 2024, and no incriminating items were seized from him. He argued that his further detention was unnecessary.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor S.V. Kekanis, opposed the bail application. They argued that Yadav was present with Ghadge during the commission of the crime, supported by CCTV footage. They asserted that the investigation was ongoing and that sufficient evidence was available against Yadav. They also raised general objections regarding the seriousness of the offense and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Tapkire, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Limited Role: The court noted that the primary allegations of assault with a knife were against Ghadge. Yadav’s alleged role was limited to accompanying Ghadge and fleeing the scene.
• Simple Injuries: The court observed that the medical evidence indicated that the complainant sustained simple injuries, not grievous ones.
• Weapon Recovery: The court noted that the knife used in the alleged assault was recovered from Ghadge.
• CCTV Footage: The court acknowledged the existence of CCTV footage but did not elaborate on its specific content.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court acknowledged that the charge sheet was yet to be filed but stated that this alone should not be a ground for denying bail.

Judge Tapkire concluded that, considering Yadav’s limited role, the nature of the injuries, and the recovery of the weapon from the co-accused, he could be granted bail subject to conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Yadav bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Bond (P.R.) of ₹1,00,000 and provide one or two solvent sureties of the same amount.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• He must report to Bhandup Police Station every Friday between 11:00 AM and 5:00 PM until the charge sheet is filed.
• He must attend every trial date.
• He must not engage in any criminal activity.
• He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• He must submit his residential address proof and contact details to the police.
• He must ensure compliance with the surety requirements before the trial court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Limited Role of Accused: The court considered the accused’s limited role in the alleged offense.
• Nature of Injuries: The court considered the simple nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant.
• Weapon Recovery: The court considered the recovery of the weapon from the co-accused.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly when the accused’s involvement is limited and the injuries are not severe.