In a recent development, a court rejected the application for pre-arrest bail filed by an individual accused in connection with an assault on a 71-year-old man aboard a train. The case, registered under multiple provisions of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), highlights the severity of the alleged crime and the court's rationale for denying the bail request.
Case Overview:
The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in relation to a criminal case registered at Thane Railway Police Station under various sections of the BNS, including charges of assault, threat to life, and theft. The incident in question occurred on 28 August 2024, aboard the Dhule-CSMT Express (Train No. 11012). The informant, who was traveling to his daughter's place in Kalyan, found himself at the center of an altercation with several co-passengers after a dispute regarding a bag containing buffalo meat.
According to the prosecution, the informant, while traveling in the general coach, was accused of carrying meat that was allegedly of an unlawful nature. During the train journey, he was confronted by a group of young men, including the applicant, who allegedly assaulted him, stole Rs. 2,800 from his person, and even threatened to throw him off the train. The situation reportedly escalated as the group filmed the assault on their mobile phones.
The Bail Application:
The applicant's counsel, Mr. Saurabh Ghag, argued that the charges against the applicant were baseless and that the police had falsely implicated him. He pointed out the two-day delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR), which he claimed suggested the allegations were fabricated. Additionally, he emphasized that there was nothing to recover from the applicant and that he was ready to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The applicant was arrested on 1 September 2024, and though he was initially granted bail, new charges under Sections 302 and 311 of the BNS were later added, increasing the possibility of re-arrest.
On the other hand, Mr. Swapnil Pednekar, the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, strongly opposed the bail application. He highlighted the gravity of the charges, pointing out that the assault involved a senior citizen and that the applicant was allegedly involved in recording the assault on his mobile phone, a piece of evidence crucial to the investigation. Furthermore, the prosecution emphasized that the co-accused persons had not yet been apprehended, and the stolen money was yet to be recovered. The investigation was still in its early stages, and custodial interrogation of the applicant was deemed necessary to ensure a thorough probe.
Court's Decision:
The court, after considering the arguments of both parties, refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant. It observed that there was prima facie evidence suggesting the applicant's involvement in the assault, including his role in recording the attack. The fact that the victim was a 71-year-old senior citizen who had been severely assaulted weighed heavily in the court's decision.
Additionally, the court noted the ongoing nature of the investigation and expressed concerns that granting pre-arrest bail would hinder the progress of the inquiry. The investigation was at a nascent stage, and custodial interrogation of the applicant was considered crucial for the recovery of stolen property, including the Rs. 2,800 and the mobile phone used to record the incident.
In conclusion, the court emphasized that the seriousness of the charges, combined with the need for further investigation, justified the denial of pre-arrest bail. As such, the application was rejected, and the applicant was directed to face the due course of law.
Conclusion:
This case underscores the complexities involved in granting pre-arrest bail in cases that involve serious allegations such as assault, theft, and threats to life. The court's decision reflects a careful balancing of the rights of the accused with the need for a fair and thorough investigation, especially when the victim is a vulnerable senior citizen. The rejection of pre-arrest bail serves as a reminder of the importance of custodial interrogation in ensuring justice and preventing interference with the investigative process.
