Aashish @ Surya Vargis Yedichery vs State of Maharashtra

The Applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No.81 of 2025 registered with Central Police Station, Thane for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 352, 351(2), 61(2) of Bhartiya Naya Sanhita (BNS) and under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

¶24

The first informant lodged the report to the concerned Police Station intimating to the police about the occurrence of the incident on 27^th January, 2025 at 3:00 a.m. It is his contention that when he came near his office, two persons wearing masks on their face came on the motorcycle. One of them assaulted him with chopper like weapon and other person caused assault with steel rod. It is claimed by him that he allegedly before causing the assault said that the informant is an informer of the police and that they will not leave him alive. In the said incident he sustained injuries. He was taken to Crity Care Hospital, Ulhasnagar. On the basis of this information, report came to be lodged. Now investigation is over with filing of the chargesheet.

¶25

2/5

¶26

11-ba3744-25.doc

¶27

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that it is the

¶28

case of the informant that both the assailants came to the spot wearing masks on their faces. It is his submission that having regard to the fact that the incident had occurred at 3:00 a.m., the question of identification of the assailants by the informant does not arise. He drew attention of the Court that the chargesheet has been filed on 25^th April, 2025 and it is thereafter the test identification parade was conducted. It is his submission that the Applicant was produced before the Remand Court on number of occasions without covering his face and as such the identification of the Applicant by the informant will be inconsequential even in the trial. He further argues that there is case of simple injuries caused to the informant and considering the fact that the informant has not gone to the Government Hospital but obtained the certificate from the private hospital, a doubt is created even about the same. According to him, the Applicant cannot be kept in jail by way of free trial sentence.

¶29

Learned APP and learned counsel for the Informant

¶30

opposed the bail. It is their contention that the test identification

¶31

3/5

¶32

11-ba3744-25.doc

¶33

parade is duly conducted wherein the Applicant is identified as

¶34

one of the assailants. It is their submission that this evidence is enough to connect the Applicant in this crime. It is argued that in view of the criminal history of the Applicant, he be denied bail.

¶35

Prima-facie, perusal of the FIR and the statement of the informant indicates that the incident has occurred at about 3:00 a.m. As per his own say, the assailants had wore the masks

¶36

on their faces. In the light of this fact, the conduct of identification parade after four months after arrest of the Applicant, prima-facie creates doubt about the same. In any case the Applicant cannot be kept in jail by way of pre-trial sentence. Hence the order.

¶37

O R D E R :

¶38

a). The Application stands allowed.

¶39

b). The Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with

¶40

Crime No.81 of 2025 registered with Central Police Station,

¶41

Thane on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in

¶42

the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶43

4/5

¶44

11-ba3744-25.doc

¶45

c). The Applicant to attend the Trial Court on each dates

¶46

of hearing unless exempted by the Trial Court.

¶47

d). The Applicant not to contact any witness directly or indirectly and not to interfere into the evidence of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever.

¶48

e). It is clarified that above observations are prima-facie in

¶49

nature and would not bind Trial Court / parties during trial.

¶50

5/5

Aashish @ Surya Vargis Yedichery v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aashish @ Surya Vargis Yedichery v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Affak Aasif Sayyed vs State of Maharashtra

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Arvind Shivpujan Giri and Ors.

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Arvind Shivpujan Giri and Ors.

Faizal Shehzad Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Vishwanath Sharma vs State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Balaram Patil vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.