The Additional Sessions Judge, Shri A.S. Salgar (C.R. No. 24), in the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai at Mumbai, on May 13, 2024, rejected the bail application (Bail Application No. 1173 of 2024) filed by the accused, Akash Sukhdev Gade and Rushikesh Ramu Chougule.

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in connection with C.R. No. 180/2024 registered at Trombay Police Station for offenses under Sections 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 387 (Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(2) (Criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.).

Key Grounds for Rejection

The Court rejected the bail application primarily based on specific allegations in the FIR, the serious nature of the offenses (especially §397 IPC), the active role played by the accused, and their criminal antecedents.

1. Specific and Serious Allegations in the FIR

The Court emphasized that the FIR contained specific allegations against both applicants, detailing their active role in the crime across two separate incidents:

• First Incident: The accused persons came to the informant’s construction site, demanded Rs. 5,000/−, and assaulted him with fist blows. Accused Akash Gade allegedly assaulted the complainant while showing a knife and forcibly removed cash of Rs. 3,000/−.
• Second Incident (18.04.2024): The accused returned, assaulted the complainant’s laborers, showed a knife to them, and stole a cement gunny bag. They also threatened to kill the complainant and demanded money.

The Court noted that the offense under Section 397 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for at least seven years, underscoring the serious nature of the alleged crime.

2. Criminal Antecedents of the Applicants

The Investigating Officer’s “Say” at Exhibit 2 specifically highlighted that both applicants have criminal antecedents:

• Accused No. 1 (Akash Sukhdev Gade): Three offenses are registered against him.
• Accused No. 2 (Rushikesh Ramu Chougule): Four offenses are registered against him.

The Court held that granting bail to individuals with a history of similar offenses poses a risk that they may again commit a similar type of offense or tamper with witnesses.

3. Investigation in Progress

The Court observed that the investigation is still in progress. Granting bail at this stage would hamper the work of investigation and could lead to a “bad message” being spread in society regarding the seriousness of such crimes.

Conclusion of the Order

The Court found that considering the nature of the offense, the active role of the applicants in two separate incidents involving extortion and robbery with a weapon, and their criminal history, it was “not proper to enlarge the applicants/accused persons on bail.”

The Final Order:

1. Criminal Bail Application No. 1173 of 2024 stands rejected.
2. Order accordingly.