The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, in a firm oral order delivered on April 30th, 2024, rejected the regular bail application of Siddhant Promod Loute. The ruling in Bail Application No. 997 of 2024 underscored the seriousness of the charges and the applicant’s alleged active role in the commission of the crime. Mr. Loute was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 162/2024 registered at Deonar Police Station, facing multiple severe charges, notably Section 307 (Attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 385 (Extortion), 324 (Causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult), and 506(2) (Criminal intimidation), as well as relevant sections of the Maharashtra Police Act. Addl. Sessions Judge Shri A.S. Salgar concluded that the specific and grave allegations against the applicant necessitated his continued detention to allow for the smooth progress of the ongoing investigation.

Specific Allegations: Armed Assault on Two Victims

The applicant, through his counsel Mr. M.S. Shaikh, sought bail by asserting his innocence and claiming false implication, arguing that no purpose would be served by keeping him incarcerated. However, the court’s scrutiny of the First Information Report (FIR) revealed specific and damning allegations against Mr. Loute, who was identified as Accused No. 2. The court highlighted the following specific actions attributed to the applicant:

Firstly, the FIR contained clear allegations that Mr. Loute assaulted the witness, Sachin, using fist blows and kick blows. This established his physical involvement in the general assault.

Secondly, and most critically, the FIR contained severe allegations related to the use of a deadly weapon. The court noted the “specific allegation against applicant/accused that he was armed with knife”. It was further alleged that Mr. Loute, with the “intention to kill the informant, he inflicted blow on the back of informant”. In addition to the attack on the informant, he was also accused of inflicting a blow with the knife on the neck of the witness Sachin.

Judicial Rationale: Gravity of Offence and Active Role

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP O.S. Maraskolhe, strongly opposed the application, stating that the investigation was still at an initial stage. The investigating officer emphasized that the applicant had committed a serious offense in collusion with others and that granting bail could lead to the destruction of evidence and the commission of similar crimes.

The court’s rationale for rejecting the bail application centered on the following crucial findings:

1. Use of Deadly Weapon: The applicant was “armed with sharp weapon i.e. knife” and used this “deadly weapon” to inflict blows. The use of a knife is a significant factor in sustaining the charge under Section 307 (Attempt to murder).
2. Active and Specific Role: The court repeatedly stressed that the applicant’s role was “specifically mentioned in F.I.R.” and that he “played active role in committing the crime.” This specific, active role in inflicting injury with a knife on the back of the informant and the neck of the witness negated any argument for a passive or minor involvement.
3. Multiple Victims and Investigation Stage: The court noted the presence of two injured witnesses and the overall serious nature of the offense. As the investigation was still “in progress”, the court felt that granting bail would “hamper” the investigation work.

Given the severity of the allegations, the clear description of the applicant’s armed assault on two individuals, and the necessity to complete the ongoing investigation without interference, the court concluded that it was not proper to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Consequently, the Criminal Bail Application No. 997 of 2024 was rejected.