Bail Application No.968/2024.
MHCC020061432024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 968 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO.173 OF 2024.

1. Achelal S/o Jiyalal Yadav @ Zeenak,
… Applicants.

2. Rakeshkumar Jiyalal Yadav
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Wadala T. T. Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.173/2024).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Manoj R. Gowd for the applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2024.

Page 1 of 7
Bail Application No.968/2024.

ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicants/accused Achelal S/o
Jiyalal Yadav @ Zeenak and Rakeshkumar Jiyalal Yadav being
accused in C.R.No.173/2024 registered with Wadala T. T. Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324,
323, 504, 506, 427 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter
referred to as, “IPC”), seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
2.

It is stated that, as on 12.03.2024 at about 4.00 p.m. in the
evening the informant alongwith his friend Santosh Yadav consumed
liquor in a Taxi of his friend near Vidyalankar College and slept in the
said Taxi. At that time a Taxi driver acquainted with the informant
namely Zinat came there and assaulted and dashed the informant. At
that time the informant got up and it revealed to him that somebody
was taking out money from his shirt pocket. He further stated that,
the said Zinat told that, the informant’s earlier taxi fair was pending
and therefore either of them had altercations.

At that time
informant’s son came at the spot and the dispute was resolved and
either of them went to their home.
3.

At about 7.30 on the same day an individual residing in the
locality of the informant namely Rakesh Yadav came at the
informant’s place and called the informant’s son. It is alleged that,
Rakesh, Nasim, Zinat were carrying weapons alongwith the
Page 2 of 7
Bail Application No.968/2024.
applicant/accused.

Zinat and his colleagues hurled abuses to the
informant’s son.

Further, it is alleged that, Rakesh assaulted
informant’s son and informant’s wife was assaulted by Zinat. The
ornaments worn by the informant and his wife were also lost in the
said scuffle. Thereafter, all four of them fled from the spot and that
the informant, his son and his wife went at Sion Hospital for
treatment. Thus, offence was registered under Sections ibid.
4.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated. It is stated that, considering
the factum of accusation, the applicants/accused have nothing to do
with the alleged crime and that he has not committed any offence as
alleged. It is stated that substantial investigation has already
concluded inclusive of medical examination and that merely because
they being neighbours applicants/accused are falsely arrayed as
accused. It is also stated that a cross case is filed and pending filed by
the applicants/accused and police have not any of the accused in the
said crime. It is stated that one of the co-accused has been enlarged
on bail and thus the applicants/accused claim parity. Furthermore,
considering the role assigned, at its face charges under Section 307
and 326 cannot be invoked.

Lastly the Ld. advocate for
applicants/accused filed a purasis vide Exh. 6 thereby no pressing the
bail application pertaining to applicant/accused No.2. Thus, the Ld.
Advocate
for
applicant/accused
prayed
for
enlarging
the
applicant/accused on bail.
5.

Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2,
and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds. It is
Page 3 of 7
Bail Application No.968/2024.
categorically stated that, the applicant/accused is the main assailant
and has been defined with a clear cut role by the informant wherein
the applicant/accused No. 1 has assaulted by paverblock which has
caused severe injury. It is stated that, the choice of the organ i.e.
head by the applicant/accused No. 1 is also relevant and considering
the factum of injuries, the applicant/accused is required for further
confrontation.

Further, the prosecution apprehends abscondance,
tampering of evidence and threatening to prosecution witnesses.
Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.
6.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused and Ld.
Prosecutor for the State. Perused application and reply along with the
documents filed and relied by the parties.

7.

The gravamen of indictment against the applicant/accused
No.1 is that he has assaulted the informant with that of the paver
block and further with a bamboo. Further, the informant has
categorically alleged that, as there was an earlier grudge, the
applicant/accused had assaulted the informant.

Furthermore,
applicant/accused has not denied for his presence at the spot.
Undoubtedly, the applicant/accused No. 1 has assaulted the
informant
with
a
paver
block
initially
and
thereafter
applicant/accused No. 1 is also assigned with the usage of bamboo
for the purposes of assaulting the informant’s wife. On the contrary
the informant categorically names the applicant/accused to have
assaulted his wife on her head.

This ipso-facto disentitles the
applicant/accused from any such relief of enlargement on bail.

Page 4 of 7
Bail Application No.968/2024.
8.

It is pertinent that the Ld. advocate for applicants accused
have not pressed the application for applicant/accused No.2 in this
application and therefore this Court will not comment upon the
factual matrix, merits and the case laws cited pertaining to the
applicant/ accused No. 2.

9.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

10.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments as advanced
by the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused, he states that the coaccused has been enlarged by this Court. It is pertinent that, this
Court has enlarged the co-accused as no role had been assigned to
him with regard to assault the informant or his relatives except
hurling abuses. Also, that the other three accused persons inclusive
of the applicant/accused No.1 are well defined with a categoric role.
Therefore, I find no parity in the role of the co-accused with that of
the applicant/accused. Furthermore, the informant/intervenor has
filed an affidavit cum settlement MOU vide Exh. 5 Colly thereby
stating for an amicable settlement of matter. It is pertinent that the
Ld. advocate for applicant/accused No.1 has stated for filing of
quashing petition before the Hon’ble High Court before nothing has
been produced before this Court. Moreover considering the sections
invoked they non compoundable in nature. Therefore such
affidavit/settlement/MOU will have no bearing upon this application.
Page 5 of 7
Bail Application No.968/2024.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application
deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :–
ORDER
Bail Application No.968/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 22.04.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.04.23
16:34:02 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 22.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 22.04.2024.
HHJ signed on : 23.04.2024.

Page 6 of 7
Bail Application No.968/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
23.04.2024
04.33 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
22.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
23.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
23.04.2024
Page 7 of 7