Bombay High Court: In the present case, applicant sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered at Thane Railway Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 126(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 324(4), 351(3), 502, and 311 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS, 2023’). A Single Judge Bench of R.N. Laddha, J., rejected the application as there was prima facie material to indicate that applicant along with others assaulted the informant-a 71-year-old man over a jar of alleged ox/buffalo meat. The Court stated that the investigation was at a nascent stage and to facilitate further investigation, custodial interrogation of applicant was necessary.
On 28-08-2024, the informant was travelling to his daughter’s place in Kalyan in a train and when the train arrived at Kalyan Railway Station, he got down from the upper berth to retrieve his bag under the lower seat. Thereafter, a co-passenger suspected that the bag contained meat and stopped him. The informant had two plastic jars of buffalo meat for his daughter and on being questioned by the co-passengers, he mistakenly said that it was ox meat. Thus, the situation escalated, and the boys started abusing and filming him and one boy with a handkerchief over his mouth began hitting the informant, followed by others who beat him on the face, eyes, and stomach. The informant’s clothes were torn, and Rs 2800 went missing from his pocket and he was threatened that he would be thrown off the train and would be killed. When the train reached Thane Railway Station, the informant, applicant, and other accused persons got off and went to the police station, but the police did not lodge a complaint, so they all left. The informant threw the meat in Kalyan Creek and went to his daughter’s place for treatment at the hospital.
APP for respondent submitted that the offence was serious and there were allegations that applicant recorded the entire act of the assailants in his mobile phone, which was required to be seized. The co-accused were yet to be arrested and the cash amount of Rs 2,800 had to be recovered. It was submitted that the informant, a 71-year-old man, was assaulted in the incident and the investigation was at a nascent stage, and thus, applicant’s custody was necessary.
The Court opined that prima facie, there was material to indicate that applicant assaulted the informant and recorded the assault on his mobile phone. The Court noted that the informant, a senior citizen aged about 71 years lost Rs 2,800 in the incident and was assaulted mercilessly.
The Court stated that the investigation was at a nascent stage and to facilitate further investigation, custodial interrogation of applicant would be necessary. Therefore, the Court rejected the application opined that it was not inclined to exercise its discretion in applicant’s favour as release of applicant on pre-arrest bail would jeopardize the course of effective investigation.
[Akash Rajendra Avhad v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3501, decided on 18-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Saurabh Ghag, along with Divya Bhatia and Akshata Sawant, for the Applicant.
For the Respondent: Swapnil Pednekar, APP, for the Respondent/State.