The grant of bail is a matter of judicial discretion, heavily influenced by the gravity of the offence, the nature of the injuries, and the stage of the investigation. These factors led the Additional Sessions Judge in Mumbai to reject the bail application of Yogiraj Mangesh Gaikwad (Bail Application No. 1002 of 2024), who was accused in C.R. No. 176 of 2024 registered at Antop Hill Police Station. Gaikwad faced serious charges under Sections 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 323, 504, 506(2) read with 34 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Indian Arms Act and the Maharashtra Police Act.
Prosecution Case and Allegations of Grievous Assault
The prosecution’s case detailed a violent confrontation that began over a minor dispute. On April 2, 2024, the informant was preparing to attend to nature’s call when the applicant allegedly pulled a small bucket of water the informant was carrying. When the informant requested the bucket back, the applicant and a co-accused began hurling abuses and assaulting him with kicks and blows. Crucially, the co-accused, Nikhil, arrived at the scene with an iron sword, which the applicant/accused took and used to assault the informant on his head, causing a severe injury. The violence escalated when the informant’s parents intervened, who were also assaulted. The informant sustained serious bleeding injuries and was hospitalized.
The applicant’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated, that his role was not specifically attributed in the FIR, and that the injuries were neither grievous nor fatal. The defense also pointed out a discrepancy between the weapon mentioned in the FIR (iron sword) and the medical documents (Koyta, a type of scythe/machete), and claimed a lack of eyewitnesses, arguing against the necessity of further incarceration.
The Court’s Findings on Gravity and Parity
The Court, upon meticulous examination of the records, made several key findings that warranted the rejection of the bail plea:
Grievous Injury and Intention
The court found that the applicant’s counsel’s argument about non-grievous injuries was contradicted by the injury report, which “palpably evinces” the injuries sustained were grievous in nature and located on vitals (the head). The court held that the area chosen for such assault clearly “propels for factum of intention” of the applicant, a key element of the Section 326 charge.
Parity with Co-Accused Rejected
The defense’s argument for parity—that the co-accused had been enlarged on bail—was squarely rejected by the court. The court noted that the co-accused were minors, and therefore, the special legal provisions applicable to juveniles meant that “there won’t be any parity applicable to the case of applicant/accused.”
Nascent Stage of Investigation and Risk of Tampering
The court also highlighted that the investigation was at a nascent stage, and granting relief would naturally “derail the momentum of investigation.” Given that both parties reside in the same locality, the court could not negate the possibility of the incident recurring or the applicant tampering with evidence and threatening prosecution witnesses.
In conclusion, the Additional Sessions Judge found a clear-cut involvement of the applicant in the commission of a crime that resulted in a grievous injury inflicted with a weapon on the head. Considering the nature of the injury, the possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence, and the lack of parity with the minor co-accused, the court held that it was not a fit case for bail. The application was consequently rejected.