HARDIK GIRISH GALAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                               18.APL-1263.25.DOC




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             Digitally signed
             by PRACHI
PRACHI       PRANESH
PRANESH
NANDIWADEKAR
             NANDIWADEKAR                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             Date: 2026.08.21
             18:51:24 +0530
                                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1263 OF 2025

                      Hardik Girish Gala                                      … Applicant
                      V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                         …. Respondents
                                                    ______________________

                      Ms. Gunjan Deepak Thakkar, for the Applicant.
                      Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent-State.
                      PSI Mr. Pravin Hindurao Shinde, R.A. K. Marg Police Station,
                      Mumbai present.
                                              ______________________

                                                    CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                                    DATED : 11 AUGUST 2026
                      P. C. :-

                      1.         Heard Ms. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for Applicant

                      and Learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State.



                      2.         By this Application challenge is to the legality and validity of

                      order dated 30 September 2025 passed by the learned Additional

                      Sessions Judge, City Civil Court and Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay

                      below Exhibit-03 in Sessions Case No.771 of 2022. By the

                      impugned order, the said application filed under Section 227 of the

                      Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the applicant/accused

                      for the offence punishable under Section 353 and 504 of the



                                                           Page 1
                      PPN
                                                  18.APL-1263.25.DOC




Indian Penal Code concerning C.R. No.261/2016 registered with

R.A.K. Marg Police Station is dismissed.



3.    It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

Applicant that there is nothing on record to show that the

Applicant is involved in the crime. She submits that the Accused is

not at all instructed.



4.    Perusal of the record shows that as per the prosecution case,

the first informant was the bus driver with BEST at Bandra Depot.

On 15 October 2016, he was on duty on bus route No.61 (Bus No.

MH-01-L-9842) along with conductor Ashok Pade. At about 7.45

pm, when the bus stopped at Sakkhar Panchayat Junction signal,

R.A.K. Marg Wadala, the applicant, riding motorcycle bearing No.

MH-02-DC-3013, came from the opposite direction and stopped in

front of the bus. The signal turned green and the first informant

blows the horn asking the applicant to move ahead, and at that

time the bus brushed against the motorcycle. The applicant

enraged, stopped motorcycle in front of bus, came near the

informant and pulled him down from the bus. He abused the

informant, assaulted him and caused bleeding injuries. Thereafter,




                               Page 2
PPN
                                                      18.APL-1263.25.DOC




the applicant fled from the spot. The conductor noted the

motorcycle number. The informant was taken to K.E.M. Hospital

for treatment. Then he lodged report to the police station.



5.    The Learned Trial Court has observed that after sifting and

weighing the evidence in various ways for the limited purpose of

finding out whether a prima facie case is made out against the

accused, it is found that prima facie material or sufficient ground

and the grave suspicion to proceed against the accused so as to

frame charge against him is available. The conductor is one of the

witness. Apart from that, there is another witness, namely, Yuvraj

Gaikwad.



6.    It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

Applicant that the statement of witnesses are stereotype. There is

no T. I. Parade conducted and the accused should be discharged.

The learned Trial Court has rightly held that the effect of non-

conducting T. I. Parade during the investigation is to be determined

after trial that is at the stage of appreciation of evidence.




                                 Page 3
PPN
                                                      18.APL-1263.25.DOC




7.    It is rightly observed that absence of T. I. Parade itself does

not warrant discharge.



8.    As far as the contention that the statements of witnesses are

stereotype, the said statements are recorded in Section 161 of

Code of Criminal Procedure. The said statements are not

substantive evidence. The substantive evidence will be laid in the

Court.



9.    The learned counsel submits that the motorcycle does not

belongs to the Applicant/Accused. But all these factors are

required to be decided after completion of the trial and cannot be a

ground for discharge.



10.   Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in the

impugned order dated 13 September 2025 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Gr.

Bombay below Exhibit-03 in Sessions Case No. 771 of 2022.

Accordingly, the criminal application is dismissed.




                                          [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                Page 4
PPN