The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay granted regular bail to Tushar Pandhari Mahadeshwar, the main accused in a serious assault case involving a paver-block. The order, issued by H.H. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire (C.R. 60) on April 29, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 960 of 2024, acknowledged the severity of the allegations but noted the crucial fact that the medical/injury certificate was not yet available on record. The Court decided that pending this vital evidence, and since the dangerous weapon had been seized, imposing stringent conditions would be appropriate to grant the relief sought. Mr. Mahadeshwar was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 195 of 2024 registered with Bhandup Police Station for offenses punishable under Sections 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 324, 323, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Serious Allegations Against the Main Accused
The prosecution case, initiated by the informant Sushil Vinod Rai, describes an incident of serious physical assault that occurred on March 25, 2024. The informant alleged that Tushar Pandhari Mahadeshwar (Accused No. 1), along with two co-accused (Gokul Bhadait and Shubham Ghadge), obstructed him and began teasing him. When the victim resisted, the assault escalated quickly. Crucially, the FIR specifically attributes the most severe act to the applicant: Tushar Pandhari Mahadeshwar allegedly delivered a blow with a paver-block on the informant’s left eye. Following this, the co-accused, Gokul Bhadait, also allegedly delivered a blow to the victim’s head with the same weapon. Due to these attacks, the informant was stated to have suffered “serious in natures head injury.” The applicant, represented by Ld. Advocate Faiyaz Khan, pleaded false implication and denied the entire set of allegations, arguing that the informant had not suffered a serious injury.
Judicial Examination: Seizure and Pending Medical Evidence
The Sessions Court recognized that the allegations against the applicant placed him squarely as the “main accused” and that the evidence available, including the alleged use of a paver-block (a dangerous weapon), certainly constituted “substantial material facts” requiring investigation. However, two primary mitigating factors influenced the Court’s decision to grant bail:
- Recovery of Weapon: The Court noted that the said paver-block had already been “detected and seized.” This negated the primary need for the applicant’s continued physical custody, as the material evidence had been secured by the police.
- Absence of Injury Certificate: More significantly, the Court observed that the “medical/injury certificate is not availed” on the record yet. The final severity of the offense under Section 326 IPC hinges directly on whether the injury sustained by the victim is medically classified as ‘grievous hurt.’ The absence of this certificate introduced an element of uncertainty regarding the ultimate charge that might be sustained at trial.
The Sessions Judge concluded that while the Ld. Trial Court had rejected the plea based solely on the severe punishment prescribed by Section 326 IPC, considering the circumstances—the seizure of the weapon and the pending medical report—it was appropriate to allow the bail, but only by “saddling stringent conditions”.
Conditions Imposed for Liberty and Policing
The Criminal Bail Application No. 960 of 2024 was allowed, and Tushar Pandhari Mahadeshwar was ordered to be released on executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and furnishing one or two solvent sureties in the like amount—a higher bond amount compared to his co-accused, reflecting his status as the main accused. The stringent conditions imposed to secure the prosecution’s interest included:
- Police Reporting: The applicant must record his attendance with the Bhandup Police Station on every Friday of every week between 11:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. until the submission of the charge-sheet.
- Non-Tampering: He is strictly prohibited from tampering or hampering the prosecution witnesses and evidence in any manner.
- Trial Compliance: He must attend every date of trial without fail.
- Travel Restriction: The applicant is barred from leaving India without prior permission of the Ld. Trial Court.
This judgment illustrates the judiciary’s careful balancing act: protecting the integrity of the investigation while the definitive evidence (the medical report) is awaited, against the fundamental right to liberty, provided the material evidence has been secured.