In a notable order dated April 26, 2024, the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay granted bail to Shree Balkrushna Patankar (Accused No. 6), who was implicated in a serious case of attempted murder and armed assault involving multiple accused. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 999 of 2024, finding that the applicant’s alleged role was significantly less severe than that of his co-accused. The applicant was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 231/2024 registered at Ghatkopar Police Station, facing formidable charges under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 307 (Attempt to Murder), 324, 504, 506-2 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with sections of the Maharashtra Police Act and the Indian Arms Act. Despite the gravity of the charges, the court concluded that the minimal and non-weaponized role attributed to Patankar did not necessitate his continued detention, even though the investigation remained incomplete.

The Serious Charges and Alleged Gang Assault

The case stems from an incident on March 12, 2024, at approximately 10:30 p.m., in Hanuman Nagar, Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar. The informant, Eklavya Sonawane, alleged that he and his friends were obstructed, abused, threatened, and then violently assaulted by a group of nine accused persons, who used deadly weapons including a sword, knife, and stones. The serious nature of the injuries sustained, coupled with the large number of assailants and the use of weapons, led to the invocation of the Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) charge and various sections relating to unlawful assembly and rioting. At the time of the bail hearing, six accused, including the applicant, had been arrested, while three co-accused remained at large, prompting the prosecution to argue strongly against granting bail.

The Distinguishing Factor: Applicant’s Minimal Role

The applicant, represented by Ld. Advocate Sushrut Jadhwar, sought to distance his client from the primary violent acts. The defense argued that the applicant denied all allegations and was falsely implicated, emphasizing that no serious allegations were leveled against him individually. Crucially, the defense pointed out that Patankar was not found carrying any weapon and did not assault anyone with a weapon. The defense highlighted that the more severe allegations were directed at the co-accused. Furthermore, the defense argued that since the weapons (sword, knife, bamboo sticks) were yet to be detected, discovered, and seized by the investigation machinery, the applicant’s further custodial interrogation was not required for any productive purpose.

The prosecution, led by Ld. S. P.P. Veena Shelar, vehemently opposed the bail plea, arguing that the applicant was actively involved as a companion of the main accused. They contended that Patankar’s initial action of obstructing the informant and his friends was a necessary precursor to the attack launched by his co-accused, and thus his role should be treated seriously. The prosecution feared that his release would jeopardize the ongoing investigation, particularly the efforts to trace the remaining three accused and recover the weapons.

Judicial Determination on Active Involvement

In its analysis, the Sessions Court found the defense’s argument regarding the nature of the applicant’s involvement to be persuasive. The court acknowledged that although Patankar was part of the large group and allegedly initiated the confrontation, the specific allegation against him was limited to “obstructed to informant and his friend” before his companions launched the attack. The court explicitly noted: “It shows the applicant was not having any weapon or he had not raised attack by using any weapon.”

The judge determined that the written objection filed by the State did “not incline seriously considerable cause reason in regard to active involvement of applicant and further requirement of investigation in view of allegations raised against him.” This critical assessment effectively distinguished the applicant’s case from that of the primary assailants. The court, therefore, concluded that while the investigation was incomplete, imposing stringent conditions would suffice to mitigate the risks and grant the applicant the relief sought.

Conditions for Release on Bail

The court allowed the application, ordering the release of Shree Balkrushna Patankar on executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnishing one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

To ensure the applicant’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation and trial, the court imposed a strict set of conditions:

• The applicant must record his attendance with the Ghatkopar Police Station on every Wednesday of every week between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until the charge-sheet is submitted.
• He is prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• He must attend every date of trial without fail.
• He shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not leave India without prior court permission.

The court’s decision reflects a nuanced approach to bail in cases of group violence, focusing on the specific, verifiable role of the individual accused rather than simply relying on the gravity of the overall charges filed against the assembly.