The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has granted regular bail to Siddhesh Santosh Mankame in a serious case involving multiple charges, including attempted murder and unlawful assembly. The order, issued on May 16, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1196 of 2024, highlights the judiciary’s meticulous approach to scrutinizing the individual role of an accused even within a large group charged with collective offences. Presided over by Additional Sessions Judge A. A. Kulkarni, the decision was primarily influenced by the finding that the applicant’s role was minimal, confined to obstruction rather than active assault with a deadly weapon.
The Gravity of the Charges and the Prosecution’s Case
The applicant, Siddhesh Santosh Mankame, was arrested in connection with No. 231/2024 registered at Ghatkopar Police Station. The charges were exceptionally grave and manifold, including Sections 143 (Unlawful Assembly), (Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), (Rioting), (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), (Attempt to murder), (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (). Further charges were pressed under Section 37(1)(a) and of the Maharashtra Police Act, and Sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Ramesh Siroya, strongly opposed the bail plea. The allegations, as per the filed by the informant, stated that on March 12, 2024, at approximately 10:30 p.m., a group of nine accused, including the applicant, obstructed the informant and his friends near Hanuman Nagar, Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar. The group allegedly abused, threatened, and then violently assaulted the victims using deadly weapons such as sword, knife, and stones, causing serious injuries. The prosecution argued that the applicant was an active companion of the main accused and his role in obstructing the victims initially was serious, suggesting a pre-planned attack and common object among the accused.
Minimal Overt Act and Absence of Weapon Use
The defence, led by Ld. Advocate Sumedh Jagtap, pleaded innocence and highlighted that the applicant was arrested on March 16, 2024, and had subsequently been remanded to judicial custody, negating the need for further detention. The core of the successful bail argument rested on the principle that the degree of involvement must be individually assessed, especially when dealing with charges of unlawful assembly and common object.
The Sessions Court meticulously reviewed the and the submissions, focusing on the specific allegations against Siddhesh Mankame. The Court observed that while the prosecution claimed the applicant was actively involved, the record indicated a less serious overt act compared to his co-accused. The Court specifically noted that it was “alleged against the applicant that initially he has obstructed to informant and his friend and then his companion co-accused have raised the attack on them by deadly weapon sword and knife and then fled.” Critically, the Court found that the applicant “was not having any weapon or he had not raised attack by using any weapon.” His involvement was deemed to be primarily as a “companion of main co-accused.” The Court also noted the defence submission that the concerned weapons—sword, knife, and bamboo sticks—had not yet been detected, discovered, or seized by the investigating machinery.
Justification for Granting Liberty
Concluding its assessment, the Court determined that the less severe nature of the allegations against Siddhesh Mankame, confined to obstruction rather than armed assault, could not justify his continued incarceration. The order stated that “in such circumstances further detention of the applicant can not be justified on any ground” and that the applicant was therefore entitled to bail. This ruling is a strong reminder that even where a crime is committed by a large group, the judicial system must differentiate between the culpability and specific actions of each participant before denying liberty. The fact that the applicant had already undergone a period of custody since March 2024, combined with the minimal role attributed to him, contributed to the Court’s decision that his further detention was unnecessary for the purpose of a full and fair investigation.
Conditions Imposed for Release
The Court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1196 of 2024, ordering the release of Siddhesh Santosh Mankame on a Personal Recognizance () Bond of . To safeguard the investigation and the subsequent trial, the Court imposed stringent conditions. The most significant condition requires the applicant to attend Ghatkopar Police Station every Saturday between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. until the charge sheet is filed. This requirement ensures his continued co-operation with the authorities. Additionally, the applicant was ordered to furnish his residential address and contact numbers, not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten witnesses, and not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Finally, recognizing the practical difficulties of arranging surety immediately, the Court allowed a request for provisional cash surety for eight weeks. This comprehensive order successfully balanced the need to protect the community and the integrity of the judicial process with the fundamental right to liberty.