The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Akash Rajendra Avhad, accused of assaulting a 71-year-old man aboard the Dhule-CSMT Express (Train No.11012) over the alleged possession of ox meat. The incident occurred on August 28, 2024, and the case was registered at the Thane Railway Police Station under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Incident Overview:
According to the prosecution, the informant, a senior citizen, was traveling to Kalyan in the general coach of the Dhule-CSMT Express when he was confronted by a group of passengers, including Avhad, after he revealed he was carrying buffalo meat. The altercation began when the informant mistakenly said it was ox meat, which angered the co-passengers. The group began abusing and assaulting him. Avhad and others beat the elderly man, tore his clothes, and stole ₹2,800 from his pocket. They also allegedly threatened to throw him off the train.
The informant later threw the meat in Kalyan Creek and went to his daughter’s house for medical treatment. He filed a complaint two days after the incident.
Defense’s Arguments:
Avhad’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated in the case and that the allegations were fabricated. They noted a delay in the filing of the FIR and stated that the applicant had already been arrested on September 1, 2024, and released on bail after furnishing sureties for the initial charges, which were bailable. However, the prosecution subsequently added more serious charges under Sections 302 (Murder) and 311 (Criminal Intimidation) of the BNS, leading to concerns about Avhad’s re-arrest.
The defense contended that Avhad had not assaulted the informant and that nothing incriminating needed to be recovered from him. Avhad expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
Prosecution’s Stand:
The prosecution opposed the bail application, stressing that Avhad had recorded the assault on his mobile phone, which had not yet been seized. They emphasized the seriousness of the offense, noting that the elderly informant had been mercilessly beaten and robbed during the assault. The prosecution also revealed that several co-accused individuals were still at large, and custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the stolen money and further investigate the incident.
Court’s Decision:
Judge R.N. Laddha denied Avhad’s anticipatory bail, citing the gravity of the allegations. The court highlighted the need for custodial interrogation to facilitate the ongoing investigation, particularly given the possibility of recovering the video recording of the assault and locating the co-accused. The judge also noted that the release of Avhad on pre-arrest bail could compromise the effectiveness of the investigation.
Leave a Reply