MHCC020065752022
IN THE SESSIONS COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1179 OF 2022
(CRIME NO.884 OF 2021, DHARAVI POLICE STATION)
CNR No.MHCC02-006575-2022
Abdul Rahim @ Ravi Kumar
]
Vanvamalai Khan,
]
Age : 39 years, Occ. : Business,
]
R/at : Room No.76, Opp. Shahu Nagar Post ]
Office, Dharavi, Mumbai – 17.
]
… Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
]
(At the instance of Dharavi police station). ]
(Vide their C.R. No.884/2021).
]
… Respondent
Appearances :Mr. Santosh Pal, Ld. Adv. for applicant.
Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, Ld. A.P.P. for respondent/State.
Ms. Yogita Kanojia, Ld. Adv. for intervener.
CORAM : VISHAL S. GAIKE,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM NO.22.
DATE : 15th June, 2022.
ORDER
This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No.884 of
2021 registered at Dharavi police station for the offence punishable
-2-
BA 1179/22
under Sections 307, 326, 324, 452, 380, 427, 380, 143, 144, 146, 147,
148, 149, 506(ii), 120-B, 109 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 r/w.
25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 37(1)(a) r/w. 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
2.

It is the case of the complainant Kaljeet Hariprasad Varun
that, on 02/10/2021, at 12.45 p.m., he was present in his office along
with his assistant Ms. Jancy Lobo. At that time, accused Rizwan, Gani,
Sadaf and their accomplice forcibly entered into the complainant’s
office with swords and rod. They attacked the complainant and his
brother Amarjeet and injured them grievously. They tried to take their
lives and thereafter, forcibly took away two mobile phones from his
office. The persons, who came to rescue him, were threatened with dire
consequences by the said accused.
3.

The say of the Investigating Officer was called. He has
stated that, the spot panchanama was prepared on the spot of the
incident in presence of panch witnesses and some articles were found
and seized from the spot. Accused Rizwan, Sohel, Mohammad Arif and
Juner were arrested on 07/10/2021. The mobile phones robbed during
the incident, were seized from accused Rizwan and Sohel. The present
applicant Abdul Rahim Vanvamalai Khan @ Ravi Kumar is having
criminal antecedents and previous four offences are registered against
him at Dharavi police station under various sections of the Indian Penal
Code and the Arms Act, etc. The other absconding accused are yet to be
arrested. Statements of eye witnesses are yet to be recorded and the
applicant may threaten and pressurise them which may dissaude them
from giving their statements. There is no permanent address of the
applicant and he may abscond after being released on bail. The
-3-
BA 1179/22
applicant was on interim bail in another offence and during that
period, he has committed the present offence. Hence, the application
may be rejected.
4.

Heard both the parties. Perused the record. Learned
counsel for the applicant pointed out the injury certificate pertaining to
the complainant which reflects that he has sustained only simple
injuries though, there are allegations of assault by swords and iron rod.
He further pointed out that the name of present applicant is not
mentioned in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely implicated later on
during the investigation. Nothing was seized from the custody of
present applicant. Other co-accused are already released on regular
bail. The charge-sheet is already filed and no purpose would be served
by keeping the applicant behind the bars. The applicant is ready to
abide any condition which may be imposed, in the event of his
application being allowed. Hence, he may kindly be released on bail.
5.

The complainant appeared and filed his intervention
application through his learned counsel. He vehemently opposed the
application and prayed for its rejection.
6.

Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application and
pointed out that the applicant is a habitual offender and many previous
offences are registered against him at Dharavi police station. The
present crime was committed by him when he was on interim bail in
another offence. The applicant may threaten and pressurise the
witnesses. Hence, the application may be rejected.
7.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions
made by both the parties and perused the charge-sheet. The name of
-4-
BA 1179/22
the applicant is not appearing in the F.I.R. The incident took place in
the month of October, 2021. Other accused are already released on
regular bail. Injury certificate of the complainant reflects that he has
sustained only simple injuries. The criminal antecedents of the
applicant are alleged. But, admittedly, he has not been convicted in any
of the previous offences registered against him. The trial against him
may take time to commence and conclude. The presumption of
innocence is available to him till the conclusion of his trial. Hence, no
further purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the
bars. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present application and
proceed to pass the following order :ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.1179 of 2022 is hereby allowed.

2.
Applicant Abdul Rahim @ Ravi Kumar Vanvamalai Khan in
C.R.No.884 of 2021 registered with Dharavi police station for the
offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 452, 380, 427, 380,
143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 506(ii), 120-B, 109 of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 4 r/w. 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 37(1)(a)
r/w. 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, shall be released on bail on
executing his P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- with two different sureties of
Rs.15,000/-, and on following conditions :(a)
He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and
evidence ;
(b)
He shall furnish his detail address, mobile/contact number,
address proof and identity proof at the time of furnishing bail ;
(c)
In case of change of his residence or mobile/contact
number, he shall inform it to the Court and Investigating Officer ;
(d)
He shall attend the Court regularly, if any charge-sheet is
filed against him ;
(e)
He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the
permission of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and if the case is
committed to this Court, without the permission of this Court ;
-5-
BA 1179/22
(f)
The applicant shall not give any threat or pressurise the
complainant and witnesses in any manner which may dissuade them
from disclosing any fact of the case to the police officer or to the Court.
3.
Bail shall be furnished before concerned Metropolitan
Magistrate. If the case is committed to this Court, then the bail shall be
furnished before this Court.
4.

Bail Application is disposed off accordingly.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
SADASHIVRAO
GAIKE
Date:
2022.06.16
16:11:34 +0530
Date : 15/06/2022.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
( VISHAL SADASHIVRAO GAIKE )
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT,
GREATER MUMBAI.

: 15/06/2022.
: 16/06/2022.
:
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
16/06/2022 at 4.15 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Bahushruta Y. Jambhale
Name of the Judge ( With Court H.H.J. Shri Vishal S. Gaike
Room No.)
(Court Room No.22)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 15/06/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
16/06/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
16/06/2022.

-6-
BA 1179/22