The court emphasized rehabilitation over punishment for young offenders, allowing bail to promote education and prevent recidivism.

JUDGEMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Gole, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.Ganapathy, learned APP for Respondent – State.

2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking Regular Bail in connection with C.R.No.379 of 2023 registered with Naupada Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 394 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”); Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1), (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short “MCOC Act”).

3. Applicant before me is arraigned as Accused No.3 in CR No.379 of 2023.

4. On the date of incident First Informant was walking from Thane Railway Station to Teen Hath Naka. As stated in the FIR, he was followed by 4 persons who after sometime intercepted and accosted him. He has stated that he was held by 3 persons and assaulted by a knuckle fighter on his body by one person following which his mobile phone and Rs.1800/- on his person were recovered and snatched by the persons who assaulted him. This incident occurred at 09:30 a.m. in the morning on a busy road junction near the traffic chowki of Teen Hath Naka. Due to the commotion and gathering of people the assailants ran away when the police patrolling van as also the traffic police van stationed nearby arrived on the incident spot. Applicant was one of the person who was running away who was nabbed by the police party.

5. Mr. Gole, learned Advocate for Applicant would draw my attention to the FIR and the contents of the FIR and persuade me to juxtapose the same with the statements of the two eye witnesses to the incident which are appended at page Nos.43 and 44 of the Application. The two witnesses in the present case are infact Traffic Police Constables who witnessed the incident as they arrived at the scene of crime. It is stated in their statement that they saw four persons assaulting the First Informant. This dichotomy is noticed when the FIR copy is read. That apart, it is seen that 3 out of the 4 persons ran away from the incident spot whereas Applicant before me came to be apprehended by the Police Constables after a chase. Applicant has identified himself to be a student of Satish Pradhan Dnyanasadhana College, Thane studying in the Second Year Junior College (SYJC), Arts stream situated very close to the incident spot. His age was 18 years and 4 months at the time of his arrest. Two of the other accused are26 years and 27 years old whereas third accused is 20 years old.

6. Ms. Ganapathy, learned APP has opposed the Application and would make the following submissions:-

6.1. She would submit that Applicant has recorded his confessional statement before the JMFC after being given 24 hours to do so after the incident. He volunterred to give his confessional statement and has specifically identified the 3 unknown persons who committed the crime alongwith him. She would therefore submit that the 3 unknown persons were known to the Applicant. She would submit that Accused No.1 namely Suresh @ Viki Pawar is the gang leader and he has serious antecedents registered against him.

6.2. She would submit that Applicant is a member of the gang led by Accused No.1 and therefore if he is enlarged on bail, there is no guarantee that he would not repeat the offence.

6.3. Finally she would submit that Applicant before me has been specifically identified in the TI parade by the First Informant as one of the assailant. On perusal of the statement which is appended at page No.26 of the Application it is prima facie seen that the 4 assailants have been specifically identified by their appearances by the First Informant. However, in the TI parade on