The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, in an Oral Order dated April 20, 2024, granted regular bail to Nitesh @ Nilesh Raosaheb More in a case involving charges of attempted murder and robbery. The decision, registered as Bail Application No. 911 of 2024, highlights a crucial legal principle: the severity of the injury inflicted and the completion of the custodial investigation often take precedence over the grave nature of the charges, such as Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) of the Indian Penal Code, when considering bail. This ruling offers significant insight into the judiciary’s application of bail jurisprudence in cases of violent crime where the victim is confirmed to be out of danger.

The Charges and Applicant’s Plea

The applicant was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 123/2024 registered with Chunabhatti Police Station for a range of offences, including Sections 307 (Attempt to murder), (Attempt to commit robbery), (Voluntarily causing hurt), (Wrongful restraint), (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (2) (Criminal intimidation) of the , and Sections 37(1)(a) read with of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The defence, through advocate Mr. Atar, argued that the applicant was falsely implicated, had been in custody for days, and that the injury sustained by the complainant was “simple in nature.” The defence stressed that the applicant is a permanent resident of Mumbai and was ready to abide by any conditions, praying for his release since custodial interrogation was complete.

Prosecution’s Opposition and the Court’s Analysis

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP O.S. Maraskolhe, opposed the bail plea by submitting the Investigating Officer’s say. Their main contention was that the investigation was at an initial stage, statements of eye witnesses were yet to be recorded, and the accused was a “habitual offender” who was likely to commit similar offences if released.

The Court, presided over by Addl. Sessions Judge Shri A.S. Salgar, meticulously examined the and the investigation status, leading to key observations that ultimately favoured the applicant:

1. Reassessing the Section 307 Charge

The alleged that the accused initially attempted to strike the complainant’s neck with a knife, which missed when the complainant moved backward. Subsequently, the accused assaulted the complainant with an iron punch, causing an injury below the left eye. The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the complainant lodged the report after receiving treatment and being discharged on the same day. The Judge noted, “In other words the complainant is out of danger,” suggesting that the actual injury, despite the intent alleged in the , did not prove life-threatening, thereby weakening the primary severity of the Section 307 charge for the purpose of granting bail.

2. Completion of Investigation and Recovery

The Court also observed that the iron punch (the weapon used for the injury sustained) was recovered from the applicant’s possession, and “Nothing is remained to be seized”. Concluding that the investigation was “practically completed,” the Court ruled that “No purpose will be served by keeping applicant/accused behind bar”.

3. Disregarding Criminal Antecedents as an Absolute Bar

Addressing the prosecution’s claim that the applicant was a “habitual offender,” the Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of bail jurisprudence. It held that “merely on the ground that other crimes are registered against applicant/accused, he cannot be refused bail.” Instead, the Court asserted that the risk posed by past offences could be managed by imposing “stern conditions” to prevent similar criminal activity.

Conclusion and Bail Conditions

Based on the nature of the offence, the non-fatal nature of the injury, and the near-completion of the investigation, the Court granted the bail application. Nitesh @ Nilesh Raosaheb More was ordered to be released on a Personal Recognizance Bond (P. R. Bond) of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount.

Crucial conditions were imposed to safeguard the judicial process: the applicant must attend the concerned police station every Sunday until the charge-sheet is filed, is strictly directed not to commit similar types of offence, and is prohibited from tampering with evidence or witnesses. This balanced order demonstrates the Court’s commitment to ensuring the accused’s liberty while mitigating the risks posed to the investigation and the community.