The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay, in a decisive order delivered on April 20th, 2024, rejected the regular bail application of Satish Suryakant Dhuri, who was accused of attempting to murder his own daughter. The ruling in Criminal Bail Application No. 973 of 2024 stemmed from C.R. No. 186 of 2024 registered at Dadar Police Station for offenses under Sections 307 (Attempt to murder) and 504 (Intentional insult) of the Indian Penal Code. The court, presided over by Addl. Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar, deemed the gravity and seriousness of the offense, coupled with corroborating eyewitness testimony, sufficient reason to deny bail, specifically disregarding an affidavit filed by the victim herself due to her “mentally abnormal” condition.

The Allegation: Domestic Violence and Attempted Murder

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the victim, Vaibhavi S. Dhuri, who is the daughter of the applicant. The prosecution’s case was built on the allegation that the applicant, who is a retired individual, is addicted to liquor and frequently quarrels with his daughter. On April 5th, 2024, the applicant allegedly returned home in an intoxicated state, leading to a heated argument. The FIR states that when the daughter shouted at him, he abused and threatened to kill her, then retrieved a kitchen knife and delivered a blow to her stomach. The victim was able to flee the house in an injured condition and was subsequently rescued by neighbors and taken to the hospital by the police. The injury sustained was categorized as being on a “vital body part.”

The Defense and the Disregarded Victim’s Affidavit

The applicant, represented by Ld. Advocate Ganesh Jadhav, sought bail by attempting to shift the blame and minimize his involvement. The defense contended that the applicant was innocent, the incident was the result of a misunderstanding, and crucially, claimed that the victim’s mental condition is abnormal and she is under psychiatric treatment. According to the applicant’s version, the daughter, after getting angry over his alcohol consumption, became violent, threatened to harm herself with a knife, and thus became injured by her own actions.

In a highly unusual move, the first informant (victim) appeared before the court and filed an affidavit that supported the applicant’s version of events, claiming she was holding the knife and sustained the injury while threatening her father. The defense urged the court to grant bail based on this affidavit, arguing it proved there was no motive for committing the offense and that the FIR was registered under a misunderstanding.

Judicial Rejection: Corroboration and Gravity Over Contradiction

The court, however, vehemently rejected the affidavit as a sufficient ground for granting bail. Ld. APP Mrs. Sulbha Joshi opposed the bail, pointing out the severity of the injury, the unlikelihood of the injury being self-inflicted, and the inherent threat to the victim’s life if the applicant, her liquor-addicted father, were released to the same residence.

The court systematically analyzed the evidence against the applicant:

1. Mental Condition of Victim: The court noted that both the prosecution and the applicant acknowledged the victim’s “mentally abnormal” condition and ongoing psychiatric treatment. Based on this, the court ruled that the victim’s affidavit, filed at this juncture, “cannot be considered for deciding the plea of bail,” effectively casting doubt on its reliability.
2. Corroborating Eyewitness Testimony: The court relied on the statement of a neighbor, Joseph Sebastian Lobo, recorded in the remand application. This witness stated that he heard shouts, saw the injured victim with blood oozing from her stomach, and observed the applicant coming out of the house carrying the knife. The neighbor and his wife restrained the applicant, who then threw the knife back inside and fled the scene. The court concluded that this witness statement “corroborates the version of incident narrated in the FIR.”
3. Conduct and Vital Injury: The court highlighted the applicant’s deplorable conduct—fleeing the scene instead of seeking medical treatment for his severely injured daughter. Coupled with the fact that the injury was sustained on a vital body part (the stomach) and the history of threats and alcohol addiction, the court concluded that a serious threat to the victim’s life still existed.

Finding the investigation to be at a preliminary stage and the offense to be of a very serious nature, the court ruled that the application was liable to be rejected. Consequently, the Criminal Bail Application No. 973 of 2024 was dismissed, compelling Satish Suryakant Dhuri to remain in custody.