Telling Traffic Cop About Uploading Altercation Video Online Is Not Assault: Mumbai Court

In a recent ruling, the Dindoshi Sessions Court in Mumbai granted anticipatory bail to Anand Tukaram Nimangre, a government servant, involved in an altercation at MIDC, Andheri. The decision, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Nandkishor L. More, was announced on May 15, 2024.

The case involved allegations under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning an incident on May 10, 2024. The prosecution claimed that Nimangre assaulted a traffic department worker and issued criminal threats during an altercation at Sathe Chowk, MIDC, Andheri.

Represented by APP Shri Sachin Jadhav, the prosecution argued against granting bail to Nimangre, citing the need to seize the mobile phone and vehicle involved in the incident. However, Advocate Shri Vishal Deshmukh, defending Nimangre, argued against the allegations, asserting his client’s innocence and highlighting the absence of essential elements required under Section 353 of the IPC.

In his oral order, Judge More carefully examined the allegations and evidence. He observed that considering the accusations and the nature of the offense, it appears that Section 353 of the IPC is hardly applicable to the applicant. The judge emphasized the importance of a balanced approach, weighing the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant’s rights.

Judge More also referenced relevant legal precedents and principles, highlighting cases where courts have stressed the need to uphold individual rights while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International