LAWS(BOM)-2024-12-93

DHANESH KASHYAP Vs. STATE

Decided On December 18, 2024
Dhanesh Kashyap Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail filed by the sole Accused in Crime No.69/2024. The Applicant has been accused of committing an offence under Sec. 109 BNS (Attempt to Murder).

(2.) It is the case of the State that a complaint came to be filed by the father of the victim on 9/10/2024 before the Pernem Police Station alleging that the accused had allegedly assaulted the victim with a knife, while she was riding her two-wheeler at Naibag, Pernem around 10:30 a.m. The victim sustained injuries on her forehead which were grievous in nature. An FIR was lodged on the same day and the Applicant was arrested from the scene of the crime. According to the Prosecution, recovery of the weapon allegedly used in the offence, a knife, was done at the behest of the Accused on 11/10/2024, after which he moved the Sessions Court for bail, which was rejected on 25/10/2024; the main ground for rejection of the Applicant's bail before the Sessions Court was that investigation was in progress and the Test Identification Parade with respect to the Accused was yet to be done, as the victim was undergoing treatment at the relevant time.

(3.) The Test Identification Parade was in fact conducted on 15/11/2024, in which the victim is alleged to have identified the Applicant. Subsequent to this, the Applicant moved a second bail application on 19/11/2024 which was rejected by the Sessions Court on 7/12/2024. Whilst dismissing this application, the Sessions Court was of the opinion that the alleged assault was with a knife which was recovered at the instance of the Accused and the victim is stated to have identified the Accused in the Test Identification Parade. The order further records that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and the Investigating Officer was required to record statements of more witnesses. This is the third bail application moved, by the Accused primarily on the ground that the Accused has been remanded to judicial custody and custodial interrogation was no more required; and further that, there was no more investigation or statements to be recorded of any witnesses.