The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai granted bail to Sameer Chanchal Kumar Yadav, a 20-year-old applicant, in a serious case involving allegations of attempt to murder, dacoity, and house-trespass. The order, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Shri A. A. Kulkarni on May 14, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1032 of 2024, hinged on the crucial observation that the applicant’s role in the multi-accused crime was limited, distinguishing him from co-accused who allegedly wielded weapons and committed robbery. Sameer Yadav was arrested by the Chembur Police Station in connection with C.R. No. 192/2024 for a multitude of offenses, including Sections 307 (Attempt to murder), 395 (Dacoity), 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 506(2) (Criminal intimidation), and 427 (Mischief) of the IPC, alongside charges under the Arms Act and the Maharashtra Police Act.
Differentiating Roles in a Multi-Accused Crime
The prosecution’s case detailed a two-part incident stemming from an initial quarrel between the informant’s cousin sister’s son, Krish Dhanawat, and two individuals, Pratham Rajput and Sonu Chhari. The first incident saw Pratham, Sonu, and the applicant, Sameer Yadav, go to the informant’s house, where Sameer allegedly assaulted the informant’s brother, Ranjit, on his left hand with a knife. However, the more severe incident occurred later, on April 13, 2024, at about 8:00 PM, when a large group, including Sameer Yadav and six others (Shiva Gupta, Aman Shaikh, Mahesh Gade, Aakash Ghag, Pratham Rajput, and Sonu Chhari), forcefully entered the informant’s house. During this second attack, articles in the house were broken, and several people were assaulted. Specifically, Shiva Gupta allegedly assaulted Sahil with a knife on his head, Aakash Ghag allegedly strangled the informant with his hand, and the informant’s gold chain was stolen. In contrast, the Court carefully noted the limited role assigned to the present applicant in the major second incident, observing that “applicant has only assaulted by kick and fist blows.”
Unwarranted Detention and Absence of Antecedents
Mr. Amrish Salunkhe, the learned Advocate for the applicant, argued that Sameer Yadav was falsely implicated and that no incriminating material was seized at his instance. He stressed that the applicant had no assigned role in the serious aspects of the offense and that his further detention was unnecessary, particularly since he is a permanent resident of Mumbai and has no criminal antecedents. The counsel also made a special plea, informing the Court that the applicant’s scheduled marriage on April 24, 2024, could not be performed due to his arrest and detention, requesting bail to allow him to perform the marriage ceremony. The prosecution, represented by Ld. SPP Mrs. Ranjana Budhwant, vigorously opposed the application, highlighting the serious nature of the offenses, the fact that some co-accused were yet to be arrested, and the stolen property was yet to be seized. They also raised concerns about the risk of tampering with prosecution evidence, as the accused and the informant reside in the same locality.
Court’s Decision to Grant Conditional Bail
After considering the arguments and the specific allegations in the FIR, the Additional Sessions Judge prioritized the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive when the custodial interrogation is complete and the evidence against an accused is weak or distinguishable. Finding that “further detention of applicant is not required” because the evidence of the assault at the applicant’s hand was limited to kicks and fist blows, and “nothing is to be seized at the instance of applicant,” the Court was inclined to grant bail. The judicial rationale rested on the absence of criminal antecedents and the lack of a direct link to the grievous injuries or the robbery, which were attributed to the co-accused. The Court granted the Criminal Bail Application No. 1032 of 2024, ordering Sameer Chanchal Kumar Yadav to be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 25,000/- along with one or two sureties in the like amount. Crucially, the Court also allowed the request for a provisional cash surety for eight weeks, facilitating his immediate release. To protect the interest of the prosecution, strict conditions were imposed, including mandating the applicant to attend the Chembur Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer on notice, furnishing residential details, and strictly prohibiting him from attempting to influence or threaten any person acquainted with the facts of the case.