Sahil Ananda Surve vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sahil Ananda Surve vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: the Applicant is to be enlarged on bail on executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: (ii) attendance before the Trial Court on every date unless exempted; (iii) monthly attendance at the concerned Police Station on the 1st Saturday of every month between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. till charges are framed; (iv) deposit of passport with the concerned Police Station if not already deposited; (v) no leaving India without permission of the Trial Court; (vi) no tampering with, influencing or contacting the complainant, witnesses or persons concerned with the case; (vii) informing latest place of residence and mobile number to the Court and Investigating Officer upon release and upon any change; (viii) cooperation with the conduct of the trial; and (ix) any infraction to entail cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant should be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.177 of 2024 registered with Trombay Police Station, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 352, 504 read with 34 of the IPC (as printed), Sections 4 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Court's answer

It prima facie appears that the entire offence was committed at the spur of the moment and does not seem to be a premeditated act.

Ratio / Principle

The case narrated by the injured victim to the Police and his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC. are consistent with each other.

Key takeaways

On the injury certificate of the injured victim there are in all 12 injuries, of which (per the continuation of the sentence at ¶25) 11 are simple and one is grievous.ratio¶24
Admittedly, the Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents.ratio¶24
Considering the young age of the Applicant (19 years, per ¶4), it is not desirable that his incarceration be continued in the company of hardened criminals.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under FIR No.177 of 2024 (Trombay Police Station, Mumbai) for offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 352, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (year as printed in the judgment), Sections 4 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — Incident occurred at the Applicant's birthday party; altercations with the victim and his friends escalated into a scuffle in which sharp weapons were allegedly used, causing hurt to the victim's head, face, hand, back and chest — Earlier bail application rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, by order dated 7th March 2025 — Applicant aged 19 years, with no criminal antecedents, in custody since arrest on 20th June 2024; charges not framed till date — Held, the victim's police statement and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement are consistent, but the offence prima facie was committed at the spur of the moment and was not premeditated; the injury certificate discloses 12 injuries, of which 11 are simple and one is grievous; continued incarceration of the young Applicant among hardened criminals not desirable — Bail granted on PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two local sureties, with conditions including monthly police-station attendance till framing of charges, passport deposit, no departure from India without permission and no contact with witnesses — Observations expressly prima facie and confined to the application; Trial Judge to decide on merits uninfluenced thereby.