In a recent order, the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay granted bail to Sagar Zhade, one of the accused in a case of alleged assault involving a paver-block. The application, Criminal Bail Application No. 948 of 2024, was decided by Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire on April 29, 2024. Zhade was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 188/2024 registered at Bhandup Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court allowed the bail application, distinguishing the applicant’s alleged actions from those of the main accused and concluding that his continued detention was not necessary, despite the inclusion of the serious charge under Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means).
The Allegations and Prosecution’s Stance
The prosecution’s case, derived from the FIR lodged by informant Hemant Padyal, detailed an incident that occurred on March 25, 2024, around 6:00 p.m. The victim, Ashutosh Shinde, a friend of the informant, was playing cricket when the applicant, Sagar Zhade, and co-accused Rohan Bawaskar allegedly instigated a dispute. It was primarily alleged that the co-accused, Rohan Bawaskar, assaulted the victim with a paver-block on his head, causing serious injury. Against the applicant, Sagar Zhade, the specific allegation was that he participated in the assault by administering fist blows and kicks to the victim. The respondent/State, represented by Ld. S. P.P. S.V. Kekanis and Ld. S.P.P Manisha J. Parmar, vehemently opposed the bail plea. Their main objection was that the applicant was a companion of the main accused and was actively involved in the crime, which resulted in the victim sustaining a serious head injury. The prosecution feared that his release would jeopardize the investigation and the safety of the witnesses.
Court’s Analysis of the Applicant’s Role
The defense, led by Ld. Advocate Mohan Rawat, denied the entire allegations and pleaded false implication. The key to the defense’s successful argument, and the subsequent ruling by the Sessions Court, lay in meticulously distinguishing the alleged role of the applicant from that of the co-accused. The court carefully scrutinized the material available on record and acknowledged that the alleged muddemal weapon, the paver-block, had already been detected and seized, and both the applicant and the co-accused had been arrested immediately after the registration of the crime. Critically, the court observed that the serious allegation of using the paver-block, resulting in a head injury, was leveled against the co-accused, Rohan Bawaskar. Against the applicant, Sagar Zhade, the allegations were limited to assaulting the victim by “fist blows and kicks.”
Inapplicability of Grounds for Continued Detention
The Additional Sessions Judge noted that except for the specific allegation of fist blows and kicks, “nothing seriously considerable raised” against the applicant. The court further observed that the Ld. Trial Court had previously rejected the bail plea primarily on the ground of the severe punishment prescribed for the offense under Section 326 IPC. However, the Sessions Court found this reasoning insufficient to warrant the continued detention of the applicant, especially given the lesser nature of his alleged direct involvement in the grievous injury. The judge recognized that the object of judicial custody is not punitive, and since the material part of the investigation—the seizure of the weapon and the arrest of both accused—was complete, continued detention for Sagar Zhade was not required. The court therefore concluded that by “saddling certain conditions”, it would be appropriate to grant the relief sought by the applicant, ensuring that the interests of the investigation and trial process were safeguarded.
The Conditional Bail Order
The court allowed the Criminal Bail Application No. 948 of 2024, ordering the release of the applicant, Sagar Zhade, on executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 50,000/- and furnishing one or two sureties in the like amount. To ensure compliance with the law and co-operation with the ongoing case, the court imposed several conditions. These included a specific mandate for the applicant to record his attendance with the Bhandup Police Station on every Wednesday of every week between 11:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. until the submission of the charge-sheet. Furthermore, the applicant was directed to not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses and evidence, attend every date of trial without fail, not indulge in any criminal activity, and not leave India without the prior permission of the Ld. Trial Court. The court’s decision successfully balanced the applicant’s fundamental right to liberty with the prosecution’s need to ensure a fair and unhindered investigation.