The City Civil and Sessions Court at Greater Bombay has granted regular bail to Satyarajsingh Umedsingh Waghela in a case involving dacoity and house-trespass. The order, delivered on May 2, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1118 of 2024, provides a significant example of the judicial application of the principle of parity, where an accused is released because co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail. Presided over by Additional Sessions Judge N. P. Tribhuwan, the decision emphasizes that the duration of custody and the lack of grievous injury or weapon use must be weighed against the gravity of the charges, even in serious crimes like Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code ().
Details of the Alleged Crime and Prosecution’s Case
The applicant, Satyarajsingh Umedsingh Waghela, a 28-year-old resident of Gujarat, was arrested in connection with No. 120/2024 registered with the V. P. Road Police Station. The charges included Sections 448 (House-trespass), (Dacoity), and (Voluntarily causing hurt) of the .
The prosecution’s case, based on the complaint of Dipesh Motilal Shah, alleged that on February 22, 2024, around 9:15 p.m., five unknown persons forcibly entered the informant’s room. One of the persons, claiming to be from Rajasthan, demanded money, caught the informant’s mother by her hair, and snatched her mobile phone. While three people beat the complainant, another attempted to silence the mother. The commotion caused residents to intervene, leading the accused to flee. The complainant and residents managed to apprehend two individuals on the spot, later identified as Sushil Hamir Sutar and Sandeepkumar Shrichand Badjati. It was these arrested individuals who revealed the names of the three absconding accused, including the present applicant, Sattyaraj, along with Dilip and Vikas. The complainant and his mother sustained hand injuries during the incident, and a mobile phone was stolen.
The Dominance of Parity in the Bail Plea
Ld. Advocate Shailesh S. Kharat, arguing for the applicant, mounted a strong defence primarily rooted in the concept of parity. The defence highlighted that the applicant was arrested on March 6, 2024, and the investigation was “as good as completed,” with nothing remaining to be recovered from him. However, the most compelling argument was the success of the bail applications filed by the co-accused: Sushil Hamir Sutar was granted bail on March 14, 2024; was released on April 1, 2024; and most significantly, Dilip Singh Guman Singh Waghela was released on April 18, 2024. The defence pointed out that the allegations against the applicant and co-accused Dilip Singh were similar, creating a compelling case for granting bail on the ground of parity. Furthermore, the defence stressed that no specific overt act was attributed solely to the applicant in the remand papers, and no articles were recovered at his instance.
The Ld. APP, Mrs. Ranjana Budhwant, opposed the application, stressing the serious nature of the dacoity offence, the presence of footage, and the direct evidence of eye witnesses. She raised the standard apprehension that the accused might abscond and that the fifth accused, Vikas, was yet to be apprehended.
Judicial Application of Bail Principles
Despite the seriousness of the charge under Section 395 (), which carries a maximum punishment of ten years’ imprisonment, the Court was heavily persuaded by the precedents set in the cases of the co-accused. The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since March 2024, and his further detention was deemed “not necessary” given the circumstances.
The Court made specific observations that mitigated the severity of the alleged dacoity: the prosecution had not clarified whether the sustained injuries were simple or grievous, and critically, the accused had not used a weapon while committing the offence. By focusing on the non-use of a weapon and the uncertainty regarding the injury’s severity, the Court minimized the aggravating factors of the crime. Combined with the successful bail applications of three co-accused—including one facing similar allegations—the Court found sufficient reason to allow the application. Adhering to the established rule that detention should not be indefinite, the Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to be admitted to bail.
Conditions Imposed for Liberty
The Court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1118 of 2024, ordering the release of Satyarajsingh Umedsingh Waghela on a Personal Bond of with one or more sureties in the like amount. To address the prosecution’s concerns about absconding and tampering, the Court imposed several strict conditions. The applicant was mandated to not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and to co-operate with the investigation.
Significantly, the applicant was directed to remain present at the concerned Police Station on every alternate Thursday between 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for a period of three months or till the filing of the charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. This requirement ensures accountability during the critical pre-trial phase. The applicant must also furnish his detailed address and mobile number to the investigating officer and the concerned court, with a further obligation to update any changes immediately. This order demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring liberty while maintaining stringent control over the accused’s movements and conduct pending trial.