Procedural lapses cannot justify bail in serious offences punishable by life imprisonment; substantive justice takes precedence over technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

Neela Gokhale, J.

1. By way of this Application, the Applicant seeks setting aside of order dated 8th December 2025 passed by the Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai, whereby the Respondent No.1 is enlarged on bail.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Complainant, is a woman, working as a Guest Relation Manager in ‘Shayalo Club’ for the past one year. Her work timings are from 6:00 pm. to 2:30 am. The Complainant/First Informant was in the 8th week of pregnancy. On 15th November 2025, after completing her shift, at around 1:30 am., she took the lift from the third floor to come to the ground floor. The Respondent No.1 herein, was also in the lift, accompanied by two men and one woman. The lift-man was manning the lift. The Respondent No.1 and his friends, boarded the lift in an inebriated condition. The Respondent No.1 had a laser torch in his hand and was pointing the light on the Complainant’s body, especially on her breast and private parts. Being annoyed with the said act, she requested the Respondent No.1 to stop doing so. The Respondent No.1 abused her with the words that “It's women like you who leave home to work at night”. The Complainant, requested the woman accompanying the Respondent No.1 to prevail upon the Respondent No.1 and restrain him from abusing her. However, he continued pointing the laser torch on her body. When the Complainant tried to take away the torch from him, he hit her with the said same on her head. The other men with Respondent No.1 joined him and one of them punched her on the nose. The lift- man tried to intervene and requested the men to stop hitting her. The Complainant pleaded with them to stop hitting her as she was pregnant. The men paid no heed to her request and in fact, one of them attempted to hit her on her head with a bottle of liquor. The Respondent No.1 punched her on her stomach. The Complainant was shouting for help and when the lift reached the ground floor, the bouncers who were stationed there, hearing her cries for help, intervened. By then, the Applicant was bleeding from her head and from her private parts.

3. The police were called and the Complainant was admitted in the hospital. Unfortunately, on the next day, she learned that she had suffered a miscarriage. Accordingly, the FIR was registered and the Applicant was arrested on 20th November 2025.

4. The Respondent No.1 made an application seeking bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai on the grounds mentioned in the bail application. The Sessions Court, by the order, impugned herein, allowed the bail application and released the Applicant. It is this order that is assailed in the present Application.

5. The Sessions Court allowed the bail application, solely on the basis of non-compliance of Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (' BNSS '). Similarly, the Sessions Court also held non-compliance of Section 48 of the , 2023. The Sessions Court has not considered the bail application on merits and allowed the bail application on the alleged procedural lapses by the Investigation Agency.

6. Mr. Bahraiz Irani, learned Counsel appeared for the Applicant, Mr. Shivamsinh Deshmukh, learned Advocate represented the Respondent No.1 and Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned APP represented the State.

7. Mr. Irani submitted that the Trial Court erroneously held that the Respondent was entitled to bail 'without going into the merits of the case'. He submitted that the Trial Court also failed to appreciate the gravity of the offence as invoked against the Respondent under Section 8