CRI. BA 664/2024
1
ORDER
MHCC020042772024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 664 OF 2024
( CNR NO.: MHCC02-004277-2024 )
FAIYAZ SHARFUDDIN SHAIKH
Age:- 23 years, Occ.:- Business
Address:- Room No. 204, 2nd Floor,
C-Wing, Chitrakut C.H.S. 90 Feet, Road,
Opp. Citizen Hotel, Sion, Dharavi,
Mumbai-400017.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Dharavi
Police Station vide C.R.No.95/2024)
…Applicant
…Respondent/State.

Appearance:Ld. Advocate Dipika Gupta a/w. Ld. Advocate Sandesh Mahikhedkar for
the applicant.
Ld. APP Mrs. Sulbha Joshi for the Respondent/State.
CORAM :
DATE
:
SHRI. S.B. PAWAR,
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R. No.58)
16.03.2024.
ORDER
This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short CrPC) in connection with
FIR No.95 of 2024 registered with Dharavi Police Station for offence
CRI. BA 664/2024
2
ORDER
u/s. 307 r/w.34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
IPC).
2.

The FIR is registered on the basis of complaint lodged by
first informant Hasnain Rauf Shaikh, brother of injured victim Jamshed.
It is alleged that on 04.02.2024 at about 09:00 p.m. when Jamshed was
proceeding by walk towards his shop on Sant Rohidas Marg, Dharavi,
Mumbai, somebody assaulted on his head with iron rod from behind.
When he turned back, he saw that applicant along with his brother Altaf
Shaikh and father Sarfuddin Shaikh assaulted him with iron rod. He
sustained grievous injury on his head. The first informant, upon receipt
of information of the assault on victim, went to the spot and rushed the
victim to Sion Hospital for treatment.
3.

The applicant seeks bail on the grounds that he is not
involved in the offence. At the relevant time, he was in his shop. There
is no concrete evidence to attract offence u/s.307 of IPC. The informant
is having enmity with other persons in Dharavi. Therefore, there is
possibility that the victim might have been assaulted by some other
persons. FIR and cross FIR was filed by the family of applicant and the
family of first informant previously and therefore, applicant is falsely
implicated on suspicion.
4.

Prosecution opposed the bail in its reply Exh-2 on the
grounds that the applicant hatched criminal conspiracy with other coaccused to commit the offence. The offence is serious and there is
possibility that applicant may pressurize the first informant and
witnesses. There is possibility that applicant may abscond and/or repeat
CRI. BA 664/2024
3
ORDER
similar offence. Other co-accused are yet to be arrested.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant and Ld. APP. Ld.

Advocate for the applicant submits that there is contradiction in the
version in FIR and in the reply filed by I.O. The FIR is hearsay. There is
no material to show that there was conspiracy to commit murder. The
applicant is implicated merely on suspicion due to rivalry between the
families. He has no antecedents. Therefore, he urged to admit the
applicant to bail.
6.

Ld. APP submits that the grounds raised in the bail
application can be considered at the time of trial. There is assault on the
vital part of the victim and medical opinion is still awaiting.
Investigating agency has invoked Section 34 and 120-B of IPC.
Therefore, specific role of the applicant cannot be ascertained at this
stage. The offence is very serious. Investigation is in progress and
therefore, bail cannot be granted to the applicant.
7.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by both
the sides. Though as per the version in FIR which is lodged by brother
of the victim, applicant along with his brother and father assaulted the
victim, it has been transpired during investigation that there was
criminal conspiracy hatched by the applicant to commit the offence. As
per the reply filed the I.O., the applicant and his brother engaged other
persons to commit the offence and had agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to
them for the said act. It has been further transpired that applicant paid
Rs.20,000/- to co-accused Dilshad for commission of the act. It appears
that at the time of actual incident, the applicant was in contact with the
CRI. BA 664/2024
4
ORDER
said persons and was instructing them about further course.
8.

The offence is very serious. Other co-accused are yet to be
arrested. The investigation is in progress. There is material to indicate
prima-facie involvement of the applicant in the criminal conspiracy.
Though there appears rivalry in the families of the applicant and victim,
at this stage on the basis of the said circumstance, no inference can be
drawn that it is a case of false implication filed with oblique motive.
Looking at gravity and seriousness of the offence and the stage of
investigation, in my opinion applicant cannot be admitted to bail.
Therefore, following order is passed.
:ORDER:
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.664 of 2024 filed by the applicant
FAIYAZ SHARFUDDIN SHAIKH in connection with FIR No.95 of 2024
registered with Dharavi Police Station for offence under section 307
r/w. 34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is rejected.
2.

Criminal Bail Application No.664 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
Dictated on
: 16.03.2024
Directly typed on : 16.03.2024
Date of sign
: 18.03.2024
(S.B. PAWAR )
Addl. Sessions Judge
Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai. C.R. 58
CRI. BA 664/2024
5
ORDER
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
18/03/2024, 4.55 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mr. Prasad S. Pednekar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room No.)

HHJ S.B. PAWAR, (C.R.No.58)
Addl. Sessions Judge.,City Civil & Sessions
Court, Mumbai.

Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
16.03.2024
Order signed by P.O. on
18.03.2024
Order uploaded on
18.03.2024