The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay granted regular bail to Shubham Santosh Ghadge, one of three accused in a brutal assault case, finding that his alleged role was significantly less severe than that of his co-accused. The order, issued by H.H. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire (C.R. 60) on April 29, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 962 of 2024, allowed the applicant to be released, despite the serious nature of the charges, which included Section 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 195 of 2024 registered with Bhandup Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The Incident and the Differing Roles of the Accused
The prosecution’s case, lodged by the informant/victim Sushil Vinod Rai, detailed a street assault that occurred on March 25, 2024. The victim alleged that while he was proceeding toward his residence, the three accused obstructed him, stopped him, and began teasing him. When the informant resisted, the accused became annoyed and escalated the attack using a paver-block—a hard, blunt object classified as a dangerous weapon under the IPC. The FIR clearly delineated the roles of the co-accused as the primary aggressors:
- Accused No. 1, Tushar Mahadeshwar: Allegedly delivered a blow with the paver-block to the victim’s left eye, causing severe injury.
- Accused No. 2, Gokul Bhadait: Allegedly delivered a blow with the same paver-block to the victim’s head, also causing severe injury.
In contrast, the allegations against the present applicant, Shubham Santosh Ghadge, were markedly different. The informant claimed that Ghadge was merely a companion of the co-accused, who participated by abusing the informant and assaulting him with only fist blows and kicks. The applicant vehemently denied the allegations, pleading false implication and pointing out the less serious nature of the accusations against him.
Judicial Rationale: Minor Involvement and Mitigating Factors
The Sessions Court acknowledged the severe nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, which warranted the imposition of Section 326 IPC against the main accused. However, the Court engaged in a necessary process of differentiating the culpability of the three arrested individuals. The order specifically noted that the “substantial material allegations are raised only against the co-accused Gokul and Tushar.” The only grievance raised against the applicant was that he was accompanied by the co-accused and assaulted the informant using “fist blows and kicks.” The Court highlighted that the applicant’s earlier bail plea was rejected by the trial court simply based on the presence of the severe punishment prescribed under Section 326 IPC, which, when read with the common intention clause of Section 34, implicated all three accused. The Sessions Judge, however, adopted a nuanced view, finding that given the less serious nature of the direct allegations against Ghadge, it would be appropriate to grant him bail by imposing strict conditions, thereby safeguarding the interests of justice while respecting his liberty. The Court ultimately found that saddling certain conditions would be an appropriate compromise in such eventualities.
Strict Conditions for Release and Continued Surveillance
In allowing the Criminal Bail Application No. 962 of 2024, the Court ordered Shubham Santosh Ghadge to be released on executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000/- and furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount. To address the prosecution’s concerns regarding abscondance and witness tampering, particularly while the investigation is ongoing (as the charge-sheet is yet to be filed), the Court imposed several stringent conditions. Most notably, the applicant is required to record his attendance with the Bhandup Police Station on every Friday of every week between 11:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. until the submission of the charge-sheet. Furthermore, he is strictly warned not to tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner, nor to indulge in any criminal activity. He must also attend every date of trial without fail and cannot leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court. This judgment underscores the judicial discretion to tailor bail decisions based on the degree of individual involvement in a crime, even when the underlying offense is grave.