The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shri A. A. Kulkarni, granting bail to Karan Ganesh Shinde in Criminal Bail Application No. 1246 of 2024 is a compelling demonstration of the immediate legal consequence of an Investigating Officer’s finding of “no sufficient evidence.” The Court ruled that once the police themselves file a report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), stating a lack of evidence against the accused, continued detention cannot be justified on any ground.
The Serious Charges and The Defence
The applicant, Karan Ganesh Shinde, was facing extremely serious charges under C.R. No. 332/2024 of Ghatkopar Police Station. The charges included Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), multiple sections related to Rioting (IPC 143, 144, 147, 149), Section 324 (Causing hurt by dangerous weapon), and provisions of the Indian Arms Act and the Maharashtra Police Act.
The defense argued that the applicant was falsely implicated, was not present at the incident spot, and that nothing was seized at his instance. The core contention was that his detention was unnecessary since the police had found no evidence against him.
The Crux of the Matter: The Section 169 Report
The deciding factor in the case was an official action taken by the investigating agency itself. The Court noted that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) had concluded that the applicant:
- Was not present on the spot at the time of the alleged offense.
- Was not involved in the commission of the offense.
Based on this conclusion, the IO had already filed a Report under Section 169 of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. This report is a formal intimation to the Magistrate that the police believe there is “no sufficient evidence” to proceed against the accused.
The applicant was still in custody, however, because the Magistrate had deferred the final decision on the Section 169 report, pending a response from the informant and the APP.
Court’s Conclusion: Detention is Unjustified
Despite the Ld. APP opposing the bail application on general grounds (investigation in progress, possibility of evidence tampering), the Sessions Judge found no merit in these objections given the IO’s own conclusion.
The Court held that since the police had affirmatively stated that “there is no sufficient evidence against the applicant to proceed with the case,” the “further detention of the applicant can not be justified on any ground.” Therefore, the Court ruled that Mr. Shinde was entitled to be released on bail, as continued incarceration would violate his fundamental right to liberty when the investigating authority had essentially cleared him of the charges.
Bail Granted
The Court allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1246 of 2024, ordering the release of Karan Ganesh Shinde on minimal conditions:
- P.R. Bond: Furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹15,000/-.
- Cooperation: The applicant must cooperate with the police by attending the Investigating Officer on written notice.
- Jurisdiction: Bail was directed to be furnished before the Learned Court below.
This order demonstrates the legal principle that judicial custody loses its basis when the investigating agency itself withdraws its factual foundation for prosecution.