The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, in a significant order on April 10th, 2024, granted bail to Mr. Sachin Paraslal Gupta, an accused facing serious charges of obstructing and assaulting police officers during night patrolling duty. The ruling in Criminal Bail Application No. 832 of 2024 addressed a core judicial dilemma: whether the accused’s status as a habitual offender should automatically override the completion of the police investigation and the principle of parity. Mr. Gupta was booked under Sections 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant), and 504 (Intentional insult to provoke breach of the peace) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following C.R. No. 27 of 2024 registered at Ghatkopar Police Station. The court, presided over by Addl. Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire, ultimately decided that despite the gravity of the crime and his past record, liberty could be secured by imposing stringent conditions.
Details of the Incident and Allegations
The case stemmed from an incident that occurred at approximately 3:00 a.m. on January 7th, 2024, when the applicant and his co-accused, his wife Abida Nazir Shaikh, were allegedly quarreling on a public road. The informant, Lady Police Inspector Deepali Kulkarni, and her night patrolling squad, including Police Staff Subhash Rote, intervened to mediate. According to the prosecution, the accused not only intentionally obstructed the public servants from discharging their official duties but also escalated the situation. The allegations stated that both the accused abused and scuffled with the officers, resulting in considerable injuries to the informant and Constable Rote, who required medical treatment. Crucially, the prosecution specifically alleged that Mr. Gupta caught hold of the collar of the police uniform and tore it, an act that adds gravity to the charge under Section 353 of the IPC. The prosecution strongly opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the attack on police personnel during official duties, especially late at night, and the medical testimonials confirming the injuries.
Judicial Analysis of Parity vs. Criminal History
The court was faced with compelling arguments from both sides. Ld. Advocate Chetan Mule, representing the applicant, highlighted that Mr. Gupta was arrested immediately on the day the crime was registered, the investigation was completed, and most importantly, his co-accused wife, Abida Nazir Shaikh, had already been enlarged on bail by the same court on January 23rd, 2024. This established the ground for parity.
However, the prosecution, represented by Ld. S.P.P. S.V. Kekanis and Ld. S.P.P Manisha J. Parmar, introduced a crucial counterpoint: Mr. Gupta’s extensive criminal history. The prosecution submitted that Mr. Gupta was a habitual offender and had eight other serious crimes already pending against him. The court acknowledged the cogent nature of the evidence and the seriousness of the crime—an attack on a Lady Police Official while on duty—stating that such behavior “is required to be deprecated.” Despite acknowledging the fact that the applicant was a habitual offender, the court deliberated whether this alone could justify denying bail, particularly when the investigation was over and the co-accused was free. Ultimately, the court concluded that the fact that Mr. Gupta was a habitual offender, in isolation, “would not material seriously cognizable in view of declining liberty to applicant” once the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet was filed. Therefore, the court decided to secure the accused’s liberty by imposing stringent conditions to safeguard the trial process.
Stringent Conditions for Release
The court accordingly allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 832 of 2024. Mr. Sachin Paraslal Gupta was ordered to be released on a high P.R. Bond of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.
To ensure his cooperation and to mitigate the risks associated with his release, the court imposed a set of strict conditions:
The applicant shall not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner. He is required to record his attendance with the Ghatkopar Police Station on the 5th date of every month between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the conclusion of the trial. Furthermore, he must attend every date of trial without fail, not indulge in any criminal activity, and not leave India without the prior permission of the trial court. This decision is a nuanced example of judicial reasoning, wherein the completion of the investigation, combined with the principle of parity, ultimately weighed more heavily than the accused’s past criminal record, paving the way for conditional freedom.