1
MHCC020018092024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 251 OF 2024
1. Firoz Mustak Khan
2. Sohel Mustak Khan
… Applicants/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through of Trombay. Police Station vide … Respondent/State
C.R. No. 22/2024)
Appearance :Mr. Harikesh Pandey, Ld. Advocate for Applicants/Accused.
Mr. O.S. Maraskolhe, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2024
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by applicants/accused Nos.1
and 2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
for releasing them on regular bail in connection with C.R.
No.22/2024 registered with Trombay. police station for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 397, 452, 504, 506(2), 427 r/w 34
of I.P.C. and Sections 37(1)(A) r/w 135 of Maharashtra Police Act
2
2.

Applicants/accused persons submitted that they are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Investigation
of the crime is completed. The injury is simple in nature. The
applicants/accused are in jail from 17.01.2024. They are ready to
abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Hence,
applicants/accused persons prayed for grant of regular bail in
connection with C.R. No.22/2024 registered with Trombay. police
station.
3.

Investigating officer submitted the say at Exh.02 and
resisted bail application on the ground that offence is serious in
nature. Investigation is in progress. Applicants/accused persons are
habitual offenders. They will put pressure on the prosecution
witnesses, if released on bail. Lastly, investigating officer prayed for
rejection of bail application.
4.

Heard
applicants/accused
Ld.

Adv.

Mr.

Harikesh
and
Ld.

APP
Mr.

O.S.

Pandey
for
the
Maraskolhe
for
Respondent/State.
5.

On the basis of the report lodged by the informant
namely Bramhanand Das, Trombay police station registered the
offence punishable under Sections 307, 397, 452, 504, 506(2), 427
r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 37(1)(A) r/w 135 of Maharashtra
Police Act vide C. R. No. 22/2024 against accused persons. It is
alleged that on 17.01.2024 at about 10.30 a.m. the informant
closed his Pan Stall and was going to his house. At that time
accused Sohel Khan demanded free cigarette packet to the
informant. The informant refused to give him. The accused Sohel
3
got angry and he took out knife and inflicted blow on the chest of
informant. The informant raised his hand for his protection in order
to save blow and said knife was hit on the little finger of his right
hand and thereby sustained injury. Brother of Sohel Khan namely
Firoz Khan was also came there and bite the shoulder of brother of
informant and caused injury. The accused persons also entered the
house of informant and thrown the articles and forcefully taken the
cash of Rs.5,000/- from informant’s house.
6.

It is to be noted that the names of applicants/accused
persons are mentioned in FIR. I have gone through the contents of
FIR. In FIR the role of assigned to the applicant/accused No.1 Firoz
is that he bite the shoulder of brother of informant and forcefully
taken the cash of Rs.5,000/- from the house of informant. In FIR all
the allegations are against principal accused No.2 Sohel that he
assaulted to informant by means of knife on his chest. In FIR there
are no allegation against accused No.1 Firoz that he assaulted to
the informant by means of knife. There are no allegation against
applicant/accused No.1 Firoz that he attempted to kill informant or
his brother by means of knife. The only allegation levelled against
applicant/accused No.1 Firoz that he bite the shoulder of brother of
informant and caused injury and steal the cash of Rs.5,000/- from
the house of informant. No any weapon is recovered at the instance
of applicant/accused No.1 Firoz. Only cash of Rs.2,000/- is
recovered from him. So far as applicant/accused No.1 Firoz is
concerned, prima facie investigation appears to be completed. No
purpose will be served by keeping applicant/accused No.1 Firoz in
jail. In my view the role of applicant/accused Nos.1 Firoz is very
4
limited one. Therefore, in view of role attributed in the crime the
applicant/accused No.1 is entitled to be released on bail.
7.

It is argued by Ld. A.P.P. that applicant/accused No.1
Firoz is having criminal antecedent and therefore, bail cannot be
granted to him. However, this submission of Ld. A.P.P. cannot be
accepted. Merely because other criminal cases are pending against
applicant/accused No.1 Firoz, the bail cannot be refused to him.
Moreover,
mere
pendency
of
criminal
cases
against
the
applicant/accused No.1 is not a sufficient ground for denying bail
to applicant/accused. The other criminal cases would not come in
the way of grant of bail. In my view the applicant/accused No.1
Firoz can be released on bail by imposing stringent conditions.
8.

In present case the applicant/accused No.1 is in
custody since 17.01.2024. No purpose will be served by keeping
him behind the bar. It will take time to commence the hearing of
the case. Therefore, it is not proper to detain the applicant/accused
No.1 for indefinite period. Moreover, the applicant/accused No.1 is
permanent resident of Maharashtra Nagar, Mumbai. He will not
abscond. He is ready and willing to co-operate the investigating
machinery. Therefore, applicant/accused No.1 is entitled for regular
bail on conditions.
9.

In present case the name of applicant/accused No.2
Sohel is shown as principal accused. In FIR it is specifically
mentioned that accused No.2 Sohel inflicted blow by means of knife
on the chest of informant and it hit on his right hand finger and
caused injury. There are also allegation that several persons
5
gathered there to rescue the informant but the applicant/accused
No.2 Sohel raised knife towards people who gathered there and
given threat to kill them. He also rushed towards people who were
gathered there for assaulting them. Thus prima facie there is
sufficient
material
on
record
to
show
involvement
of
applicant/accused No.2 in the said crime. Therefore, bail cannot be
granted to applicant/accused No.2.
10.

In present case there are specific allegation that
accused No.2 Sohel that he assaulted informant by means of knife
and the blow was given on the vital part of the body of the
informant. Applicant/accused No.2 possessed the weapon with the
sole intention to commit murder of informant. Prima facie it
appears from the conduct of applicant/accused No.2 that he has
clear intention to commit murder of informant. Therefore,
considering the role in the alleged crime, the bail cannot be granted
to the applicant/accused No.2 Sohel.
11.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, I am of the view
that the role of applicant/accused No.1 is limited one. As per
allegation in FIR, he only bite brother of informant and stolen
Rs.5,000/- from the house of informant. There is no allegation that
applicant/accused No.1 assaulted to the informant by any weapon.
Considering his role in the crime, he is entitled to be released on
bail. F.I.R. itself shows that applicant/accused No.2 Sohel has
played active role in committing crime. All the allegations of assault
by dangerous weapon are against applicant/accused No.2 Sohel.
Prima facie there is sufficient material on record to show
involvement of applicant/accused No.2 Sohel in said crime.

6
Therefore, applicant/accused No.2 is not entitled for grant of
regular bail. However, applicant/accused No.1 is entitled for grant
of regular bail. Therefore, bail application needs to be partly
allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal
Bail
Application
No.

251
of
2024
filed
by
Applicants/accused persons is partly allowed.
2.

Criminal Bail Application No. 251 of 2024 in respect of
applicant/accused No.2 Sohel Mustak Khan stands rejected.

3.

Applicant/accused No.1 namely Firoz Mustak Khan, resident of
Indira nagar, Chawl No.1, Maharashtra Nagar, Mumbai be
released on regular bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/along with one or more sureties in like amount in connection with
C.R. No. 22/2024 registered with Trombay police station for the
offence punishable under Sections 307, 397, 452, 504, 506 (2),
427 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 37(1)(A) r/w 135 of
Maharashtra Police Act on following conditions :(a) Applicant/accused No.1 is directed to attend Trombay Police
station twice in a week i.e. on every Sunday and Wednesday in
between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon till filing of charge-sheet.
(b) Applicant/accused No.1 and his sureties shall provide their
respective residential addresses, mobile numbers and email
addresses, if any to investigation officer. Applicant/accused No.1
shall intimate any such change in address or telephone numbers
and Email ID forthwith.
(c) Applicant/accused No.1 should not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
facts of case so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts to
7
Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with the
evidence and prosecution witnesses.
(d)
Applicant/accused No.1 shall not leave India without prior
permission of Ld.Sessions Court.
(e)
Breach of any conditions by applicant/accused No.1 shall
result in cancellation of bail.
4.

Bail before Ld. Trial Court.

5.

Criminal Bail Application No. 251 of 2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 09.02.2024
Dictated on
: 09/02/2024
Transcribed on : 12/02/2024
HHJ signed on : 13/02/2024
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
8
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
14/02/2024 5.05 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
PRAJWALA V. PHODKAR
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24)
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 09/02/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 13/02/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 14/02/2024
on