Mumbai, July 8, 2022 – In a ruling that considered the existence of a counter-FIR and the lack of substantial evidence of grievous injuries, the Additional Sessions Judge Vishal S. Gaike (Court Room No. 22) granted bail to Subhash Subramanyam Devendra and Gunasekhar Subramanyam Devendra in connection with an assault case registered at Worli Police Station (C.R. No. 663/2022). The court emphasized the prior FIR filed by the accused and the absence of clear medical evidence supporting the complainant’s claims.
Background of the Case:
Subhash and Gunasekhar Devendra, residents of Worli, were arrested for allegedly assaulting Velu Muniappan Devendra, his brother, sister-in-law, and nephews with wooden sticks, iron rods, and other weapons on May 30, 2022, at around 11:30 p.m. The case was registered under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of1 the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation),2 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense3 committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal4 Code (IPC) and Section 37(1)(a) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Vijay Desai, representing the Devendra brothers, argued that his clients were innocent and falsely implicated. He highlighted that the present FIR was a counterblast to their own FIR (C.R. No. 662/2022) registered against the complainant and his accomplices for assaulting the Devendra brothers and their family members. He pointed out that co-accused were already released on bail and that the investigation was nearly complete.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) U.B. Karvate, representing the State, opposed the bail application, arguing that the Devendra brothers had attacked the complainant and his family with dangerous weapons and caused grievous injuries. She also stated that absconding accused were yet to be arrested and weapons were yet to be recovered.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Gaike, after reviewing the case diary, noted that the APP was unable to provide any documents showing that the complainant and his family had sustained grievous injuries. He observed that the hospital discharge summaries presented were actually for the Devendra brothers and their family.
“Admittedly, F.I.R. lodged by the present applicants is first in point of time,” Judge Gaike stated in his order. “Hence, at this stage, the second F.I.R. No.663/2022 can be said to be a counter blast to F.I.R. No.662/2022.”
The court also considered that some of the accused had already been released on bail and that there was no indication that the Devendra brothers would flee from justice.
“Applicants are not having criminal antecedents and from the facts and circumstances, it appears that there was a quarrel and fight between two groups in which both the parties sustained some injuries,” Judge Gaike noted. “Thus, in view of above discussion, no further purpose would be served by keeping the applicants behind the bars.”
Consequently, the court granted bail to Subhash and Gunasekhar Devendra, ordering their release upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 30,000 each with one surety each of the same amount.
The court imposed several conditions, including that the Devendra brothers must not tamper with witnesses or evidence, must provide their address and contact details, must inform the court of any change in residence or contact information, must attend court regularly if a charge sheet is filed, must cooperate with the investigation, must not leave the court’s jurisdiction without permission, and must not threaten or pressurize the complainant or witnesses.
Implications and Significance:
This ruling highlights the court’s consideration of counter-FIRs and the importance of medical evidence in assault cases. The decision underscores that when there is a counter-complaint and the alleged grievous injuries are not clearly substantiated, bail can be granted with appropriate conditions.
The court’s decision also reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that the accused’s rights are protected while also imposing conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent interference with the legal process.
The order was dictated on July 5, 2022, transcribed on July 7, 2022, signed, and uploaded on July 8, 2022, at 3:15 p.m.