THANE: A court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of attempting to murder a hotel owner in 2021, in Maharashtra’s Thane.
Additional Sessions Judge Premal S Vithalani, in an order issued on September 25 and made available on Sunday, stated that in the event of the arrest of the applicant/accused, Aakash Baban Rasal, for offenses punishable under Indian Penal Code sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 326 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), he should be released on bail on a personal recognizance bond of Rs 15,000, along with one surety in the same amount.
The main accused in the case had already been released on bail.
According to the prosecution, on October 15, 2021, the main accused visited the victim’s hotel in the Castle Mill area of Thane city and requested a chicken dish to be served to him, intending to eat it outside the hotel while consuming liquor. However, the victim declined to serve the food outside and suggested a takeaway instead.
This led to an altercation, resulting in the prime accused assaulting the victim on the head with a sharp-edged weapon. As the victim resisted, he also suffered an injury to his hand. When the victim cried out for help, the hotel staff arrived, and the attacker fled the scene.
The victim was subsequently admitted to a hospital, and his statement was recorded. The main accused was arrested following the registration of the case. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the main accused, while co-accused Rasal was marked as absconding.
Rasal’s counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence against him in the chargesheet. It was further contended that the prime accused had already been granted bail, and there was no need for Rasal’s custodial interrogation.
The judge observed that neither the FIR nor the supplementary statement of the victim alleged that Rasal was present when the crime occurred. None of the prosecution witnesses mentioned the name of the present applicant/accused in their statements. While the prosecution claimed that CCTV footage from the hotel showed Rasal with the main accused at the time of the offense, the court determined that the accuracy of this claim would be assessed during the trial.
“At this stage, I find that in the FIR, there are no allegations that the present applicant participated in the actual assault of the victim. He did not inflict any injury on the victim,” noted the judge.
Therefore, the court concluded that the present applicant was eligible for anticipatory bail.
(With agency inputs)
Additional Sessions Judge Premal S Vithalani, in an order issued on September 25 and made available on Sunday, stated that in the event of the arrest of the applicant/accused, Aakash Baban Rasal, for offenses punishable under Indian Penal Code sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 326 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), he should be released on bail on a personal recognizance bond of Rs 15,000, along with one surety in the same amount.
The main accused in the case had already been released on bail.
According to the prosecution, on October 15, 2021, the main accused visited the victim’s hotel in the Castle Mill area of Thane city and requested a chicken dish to be served to him, intending to eat it outside the hotel while consuming liquor. However, the victim declined to serve the food outside and suggested a takeaway instead.
This led to an altercation, resulting in the prime accused assaulting the victim on the head with a sharp-edged weapon. As the victim resisted, he also suffered an injury to his hand. When the victim cried out for help, the hotel staff arrived, and the attacker fled the scene.
The victim was subsequently admitted to a hospital, and his statement was recorded. The main accused was arrested following the registration of the case. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the main accused, while co-accused Rasal was marked as absconding.
Rasal’s counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence against him in the chargesheet. It was further contended that the prime accused had already been granted bail, and there was no need for Rasal’s custodial interrogation.
The judge observed that neither the FIR nor the supplementary statement of the victim alleged that Rasal was present when the crime occurred. None of the prosecution witnesses mentioned the name of the present applicant/accused in their statements. While the prosecution claimed that CCTV footage from the hotel showed Rasal with the main accused at the time of the offense, the court determined that the accuracy of this claim would be assessed during the trial.
“At this stage, I find that in the FIR, there are no allegations that the present applicant participated in the actual assault of the victim. He did not inflict any injury on the victim,” noted the judge.
Therefore, the court concluded that the present applicant was eligible for anticipatory bail.
(With agency inputs)
