The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai granted regular bail to Sudhir Anand Khandagale @ Dadya, one of the accused in a case involving attempted murder and assault, in an order issued by H.H. Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar (C.R. No. 24) on February 9, 2024. The bail was granted primarily because the Court found the applicant’s role in the crime was limited to assault by mere fist blows, while the key allegation of attempting to kill the victim with a sharp weapon was directed solely at the principal co-accused. The Court further noted that the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet had been filed. Mr. Khandagale was facing charges under Section 307 (Attempt to murder), 341 (Wrongful restraint), 109 (Abetment) read with 34 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, registered under C.R. No. 684/2023 at R.C.F. Police Station.

The Allegations and the Differentiated Roles in the Assault

The incident, as per the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the informant, Aakash Babasaheb Londhe, occurred on November 20, 2023, in Chembur. The FIR alleged that the accused persons chased the informant on his motorbike, stopped him, and then assaulted him. The Sessions Court meticulously analyzed the specific roles attributed to each accused to differentiate the applicant’s involvement:

• Principal Accused (Ganesh Khandagale): The FIR specifically alleged that Ganesh Khandagale abused the informant, gave a threat to kill him, and inflicted a blow with a sharp-edged weapon on the informant’s head, constituting the core of the attempt to murder charge.
• Applicant (Sudhir Khandagale @ Dadya) and Co-accused Rahul Katalkar: The allegation against the applicant was solely that he “caught hold the informant” and “assaulted the informant by fist blows.”

The Court placed significant weight on this distinction, concluding that the role of the applicant/accused was limited, as he did not use any weapon, and there was no allegation that he attempted to kill the informant. The severe allegation under Section 307 IPC was found to be exclusively against the principal accused.

Judicial Rationale: Completed Investigation and Limited Culpability

The decision to grant bail was heavily influenced by two major factors: the status of the investigation and the degree of the applicant’s culpability.

• Completed Investigation: The Court confirmed that the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet had been filed. The Investigating Officer had already recorded the statements of witnesses, seized the weapon, and secured the clothes. Crucially, nothing further needed to be recovered at the instance of the applicant. Furthermore, the statement of the injured party was already recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC, mitigating the risk of witness tampering.
• Minor Role: The Court stressed that all allegations involving a deadly weapon were against the principal accused. The applicant’s role was merely that of an assaulter using fist and kick blows. Since the informant was already discharged from the hospital, and the applicant had been in custody since November 23, 2023, the Court found no purpose in keeping him behind bars, especially as he had no criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident of Mumbai. The continuation of his detention would only serve a punitive purpose while the trial, which could take a significant amount of time, was yet to commence.

Conditions Imposed to Secure Justice and Safety

The Sessions Court ultimately found that by imposing appropriate conditions, the applicant could be released without prejudice to the prosecution’s case. Criminal Bail Application No. 271 of 2024 was allowed, and Sudhir Anand Khandagale @ Dadya was released on a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹25,000/- along with one or more sureties in the like amount. The conditions were tailored to protect the victim and ensure judicial compliance:

• The applicant is strictly prohibited from entering the vicinity where the informant resides. This condition is a direct measure to ensure the safety and security of the victim.
• The applicant must attend the Court on every date.
• He is prohibited from tampering with the evidence or making any inducement, threat, or promise to dissuade witnesses from disclosing facts.
• He must not leave India without the Court’s prior permission.

This judgment serves as an important precedent illustrating the court’s judicious approach in cases involving multiple accused, where the distinction between the principal offender and those with a peripheral role is critical in determining the entitlement to pre-trial liberty.