Court emphasized the necessity of strong evidence of premeditation for custody in serious allegations, finding contradictions in victim's family's statements sufficient to grant bail.

JUDGMENT :

DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with C.R. No. 220 of 2025 dated 19^th April 2025 registered with the Mankhurd Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 118 (2), 118(1), 352, 115(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“ BNS ”).

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18^th April 2025, there was a quarrel between the family members of the deceased and the Applicant. The issue on the basis of which the quarrel took place was that the deceased’s daughter, aged 15 years, used to talk to one of the boys in the Applicant’s family. The family of the deceased went to the house of the Applicant’s family to resolve the matter and to convey to the Applicant’s family members that their son should not meet the deceased’s daughter. There was some dispute between the family members, which led to an altercation. The family members of the Applicant registered an NC complaint with the police station concerned. Similarly, the family members of the deceased were called to the police station for inquiry. They also registered an NC complaint against the Applicant and his family. It is the allegation of the First Informant that while returning from the police station, the Applicant and his family members were lying in wait on the road, carrying certain weapons such as iron rod, wooden stick, etc. There was an altercation on the road. It is the prosecution’s case that the deceased and his family members were beaten up with a wooden plank and an iron rod. The Applicant is alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a knife on his back. Thus, the present FIR was registered and the Applicant was arrested. The deceased at that point of time was hospitalized and was being treated for his injuries. He gave a statement dated 27^th April 2025, narrating the incident to the police. Two months later, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.

3. The Applicant filed a bail application before the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. However, by order dated 15^th November 2025, the said application was rejected and hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the relief as prayed.

4. Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits that this is a case of cross FIRs between the two families. The deceased was initially hospitalized for treating the injuries caused by the Applicant on his back. However, when he passed away, after approximately two months, the cause of death in the postmortem report is shown as “pulmonary consolidation following multiple injuries in an alleged case of assault”. It is thus, Mr. Bhawnani’s argument that the Applicant has not died of the injuries purported to have been inflicted upon him by the Applicant. He submits that even originally, the FIR initiated against the Applicant was not under Section 109 of the BNS , but was only for the offence of grievous hurt. He thus submits that, the cause of death of the deceased is not on account of the purported assault by the Applicant, but because of an unrelated illness. He further submits that there are no antecedents against the Applicant. There was also no premeditation to commit the offence as alleged. Hence, he prays that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.

5. Mr. Yogesh Dabke, learned APP, on the other hand, has placed before me the statement of the sister of the deceased recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS , 2023. He submits that the statement recorded before the Magistrate clearly demonstrates premeditation of the Applicant and his family members to attack the deceased and his family members. He submits that the offence is serious and that the deceased has lost his life. He also submits that it is not a ca