MUMBAI, April 23, 2024 — The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Achelal S/o Jiyalal Yadav (also known as Zeenak), one of the accused in a case involving charges of attempt to murder (Section 307 of the IPC) and grievous hurt (Section 326 of the IPC). The court dismissed the plea due to the severe nature of the alleged assault, the categorical role assigned to him as the main assailant, and the fact that the sections invoked are non-compoundable.

Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar (C.R. No.37) pronounced the oral order on April 22, 2024, in connection with C.R. No. 173 of 2024 registered at Wadala T.T. Police Station. The bail application for the second applicant, Rakeshkumar Jiyalal Yadav, was not pressed by the defense counsel, Mr. Manoj R. Gowd, and was therefore not considered by the court.

Allegations of Assault with Paver Block and Bamboo

The case stems from a two-part incident that occurred on March 12, 2024. The initial altercation, reportedly over a pending taxi fare, took place around 4:00 p.m. near Vidyalankar College and was allegedly resolved after the informant’s son intervened.

However, the main assault, leading to the serious charges, occurred later at about 7:30 p.m. when the accused, Achelal, along with Rakesh Yadav, Nasim, and others, allegedly arrived at the informant’s residence carrying weapons.

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal, argued that Achelal Yadav (Applicant No. 1) was the “main assailant” and had a “clear cut role” in the attack. The specific allegations against Achelal are:

• He assaulted the informant with a paver block, causing a severe injury. The court noted that the choice of organ (head) for the assault was highly relevant.
• He also used a bamboo to assault the informant’s wife, again targeting her head.
• The scuffle also allegedly resulted in the loss of ornaments worn by the informant and his wife.

Court Rejects Claims of Parity and Settlement

The defense argued that the accused were falsely implicated, that the role assigned did not justify Section 307 or Section 326, and that a cross-case had been filed by the applicants. Crucially, the defense also sought parity because one co-accused had been enlarged on bail.

The court specifically addressed and rejected the claim of parity:

• The judge clarified that the co-accused was granted bail because “no role had been assigned to him with regard to assault the informant or his relatives except hurling abuses.”
• In contrast, Achelal Yadav and the other two accused were assigned “a categoric role” in the assault, meaning his case was distinct and he could not claim parity.

Furthermore, the informant filed an affidavit-cum-settlement MOU, stating that the matter had been amicably settled. However, the Sessions Judge dismissed this as well, emphasizing:

• The sections invoked, particularly Sections 307 and 326, are non-compoundable in nature under the law.
• Therefore, the amicable settlement affidavit would have “no bearing upon this application.”

Concluding that a strong prima facie case exists against Achelal Yadav, and his categorical participation in an assault involving dangerous weapons against vulnerable body parts was apparent, the court held that the application deserved no consideration.

The application, Criminal Bail Application No. 968 of 2024, was rejected and disposed of by the Sessions Court.