CRI. BA 973/2024
1
ORDER
MHCC020061242024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 973 OF 2024
( CNR NO.: MHCC020061242024 )
SATISH SURYAKANT DHURI
Age 60 years, Occ.:- Retired
Residing At, Room No.312,
3rd Floor, Sudarshan Buiding,
Gokhale Road, Mumbai-400028.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Dadar
Police Station vide C.R.No.186/2014)
…Applicant/Accused
…Respondent/State.

Appearance:Ld. Advocate Ganesh Jadhav for the applicant/accused.
Ld. A. P.P. Mrs. Sulbha Joshi for the State/respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
S.B.PAWAR (C.R.58)
DATE : 20.04.2024.

CRI. BA 973/2024
2
ORDER
ORDER
1.

The accused/applicant who is arrested in connection with
C.R. No.186 of 2024 registered with Dadar Police Station for the
offences punishable u/s.307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 has
filed the present application for regular bail u/s.439 of the Cr.P.C.
2.

The FIR is lodged by the first informant Vaibhavi S. Dhuri
who is daughter of the applicant. The mother of the first informant is no
more. The first informant and applicant were residing together in Room
No.312, 3rd Floor Sudarshan Building, Gokhale Road, Mumbai. It is
alleged in the FIR that the applicant is addicted to liquor and used to
quarrel with the first informant under the influence of intoxicant. On
05.04.2024 he came home in drunken condition. The first informant
shouted at him. The applicant abused and threatened to kill the first
informant, took out knife used for cutting vegetables from the kitchen
and gave its blow on the stomach of the first informant. The first
informant ran outside the house in injured condition. Her neighbours
saved her. Thereafter, police arrived and took the first informant to
hospital.
3.

The applicant claims that he is innocent. The first
informant’s mental condition is abnormal and she is under observation
and treatment of psychiatrist. The applicant denied the incident as per
FIR. As per his contentions when he returned home by consuming some
alcohol, the first informant got angry, became violent, started shouting
at the applicant, threatened to finish herself with knife and became
injured. It is further contended that investigation is complete, and
CRI. BA 973/2024
3
ORDER
custody of the applicant is not required. He is ready to co-operate. He
has no criminal antecedent.
4.

The prosecution in its reply Exh-2 opposed the bail on the
grounds that there is possibility that applicant may pressurize first
informant for withdrawing the FIR as they are residing in the same
house. He may again attack the first informant. He is addicted to
alcohol and he may threaten the witnesses.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant, Ld. APP and I.O. The
first informant remained present before the court and filed affidavit in
support of the application.
6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant argued that the FIR is
registered out of misunderstanding. There was no motive for
committing the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedent.
Therefore, in the light of affidavit filed by the first informant he urged
to admit the applicant to bail. On the other hand the Ld.APP and I.O.
vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the informant had
sustained serious injury. The injury cannot be self-inflicted. There is
threat to the life of first informant, if applicant is released on bail. The
offence is serious in nature. The investigation is not complete and
therefore, application cannot be allowed.
7.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions of both the
sides. I have perused FIR, Remand Application, reply as well as affidavit
filed by the first informant. In the affidavit, the first informant has
stated that she was holding a knife and while giving threat to the
CRI. BA 973/2024
4
ORDER
applicant as he had consumed alcohol, she sustained injury by the knife.
In short, in the affidavit first informant supports the version of the
applicant about the incident narrated in the bail application. It may be
noted that as per the case of prosecution as well as of the applicant the
first informant is mentally abnormal and she is under observation and
treatment of psychiatrist. Therefore, filing such affidavit by the first
informant at this juncture cannot be considered for deciding the plea of
bail.
8.

Remand Application dated 08.04.2024 produced on record
indicates that investigation agency has recorded statement of witness
Joseph Sebastian Lobo who was residing in the adjacent room. As per
his statement he heard shouts in the house of the applicant and first
informant, he along with his wife Maria came outside their house, the
first informant narrated incident to them. At that time, blood was
oozing from her stomach, applicant came outside his house carrying
knife, they stopped the applicant, he returned to his house, threw knife
in the house, and thereafter, left the said place. The statement of the
above witness corroborates the version of incident narrated in the FIR.
The applicant is the father of the first informant. However, after the
incident instead of taking her to hospital for medical treatment, it
appears that he went away from the said place and the first informant
was taken to hospital by police who shortly arrived at the said place.
9.

The injury sustained by the first informant is on the vital
body part i.e. on stomach. The applicant happens to be her father. He is
addicted to liquor. As per the contents of the FIR there used to be
frequent quarrels of the applicant with the first informant. It appears
CRI. BA 973/2024
5
ORDER
that he had given threat to kill the first informant. The investigation is
at preliminary stage. The offence is very serious. Therefore, in my
opinion at this stage considering the seriousness and gravity of the
offence, the applicant cannot be released on bail on the basis of affidavit
filed by the first informant. The application is liable to be rejected.
Thus, I pass the following order.
:ORDER:
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.973 of 2024 filed by the applicant
SATISH SURYAKANT DHURI in connection with FIR No.186 of 2024
registered with Dadar Police Station for offence under sections 307 and
504 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 is hereby rejected.
2.

Criminal Bail Application No.973 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
Dictated and pronounced in open court
SACHIN
BALVANT
PAWAR
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
: 20.04.2024
: 20.04.2024
: 25.04.2024
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
BALVANT
PAWAR
Date:
2024.04.25
16:06:10
+0530
(S.B.PAWAR)
Addl. Sessions Judge
Sessions Court,
Mumbai. C.R. 58
CRI. BA 973/2024
6
ORDER
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
25/04/2024, 4.40 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mr. Prasad S. Pednekar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room No.)

HHJ S.B.PAWAR,(C.R.No.58)
Addl. Sessions Judge.,City Civil & Sessions
Court, Mumbai.

Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
20.04.2024
Order signed by P.O. on
25.04.2024
Order uploaded on
25.04.2024