Supreme Court Grants Bail to Petitioner in Violent Assault Case, Slams Maharashtra for Shocking Custodial Lapses

Overview of the Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Shashi alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani in a high-profile assault case registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case stems from FIR No. 0303/2021, lodged on October 15, 2021, at the Vitthalwadi Police Station in Ulhasnagar, Thane district, Maharashtra. The petitioner faces charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 (unlawful assembly and rioting), 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 353 (assault on public servant), and 333 (causing grievous hurt to public servant) of the IPC.

The incident involved an alleged group attack where the petitioner and co-accused were implicated in assaulting a victim who later succumbed to injuries two months after the event, as well as injuring a police constable. However, subsequent statements from the deceased and the constable significantly altered the narrative, leading the court to reconsider the petitioner's role.

Key Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioner's counsel highlighted several mitigating factors: the petitioner has been in custody for over four years without any prior criminal record. Crucially, statements from the deceased clarified that the petitioner and co-accused Umesh @ Omi Bansilal Kishnani only used fists and kicks, while co-accused Naresh inflicted the knife injury on Constable Ganesh Ashok Damale. The constable's own statement did not name the petitioner, describing only the physical build of the assailants. Additionally, the counsel noted that Umesh, identically situated, had already been granted bail, and the ongoing trial has seen the petitioner produced in court on just 30 out of 85 dates—a glaring procedural failure.

The State of Maharashtra, through its counsel, offered no substantial rebuttal to these claims, which the court described as uncontroverted.

Court's Strong Rebuke on State Conduct

The Supreme Court expressed profound shock at the Maharashtra authorities' conduct, emphasizing the fundamental role of producing an accused in court. As the bench observed: "The production of an accused before the Court is not only to ensure speedy trial but more importantly, as a safeguard so that the prisoner is not abused otherwise, and he comes directly in contact with the Court so as to air his grievances if any, against the authorities." The court deemed this "grave infraction" of prisoner rights as "appalling and shocking," deprecating the systemic lapse.

In response, the court directed the Director General of Prisons, Maharashtra (or the designated head), to conduct a personal inquiry into the non-production issue, fix responsibility, and take action against those involved. It warned: "If any attempt is made to protect or shield any person, the Director General of Prisons/Head of Department of Prisons to whom we are entrusting the inquiry, shall be personally held responsible." A detailed affidavit report is mandated within two months, with the matter relisted on February 3, 2026.

No specific precedents were cited in the judgment, but the ruling underscores broader principles of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty), speedy trial under Article 300A (right to property and due process), and the Supreme Court's oversight role in preventing custodial abuses.

Final Decision and Implications

On the merits, the court found a compelling case for bail, ordering the petitioner's release subject to terms set by the trial court. The Special Leave Petition (Case No. 12690/2025) was disposed of, with pending applications also closed.

This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to balancing public safety with individual rights, particularly in cases where initial allegations evolve through evidence. For legal practitioners, it highlights the weight of custodial duration, co-accused parity, and evidentiary shifts in bail applications. More broadly, the ordered inquiry could prompt reforms in Maharashtra's prison administration, ensuring better compliance with production mandates and protecting undertrial rights. The ruling serves as a caution to state machinery against procedural negligence that undermines justice.

The State counsel has been directed to communicate the order promptly to relevant officers.