1
B.A. 1875 OF 22
MHCC020102162022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION No. 1875 OF 2022
Mr. Khaiyamuddin Moinuddin Sayyad
@ Kayyam
Aged : 32 years, Occ.
Residing at R.No.303, 2nd floor,
Madhuri Chaya Bldg., Nerul, Karjat,
Dist.: Raigad, Maharashtra
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Dharavi P. Stn.
vide CR. No.945/2022)
… Applicant
Versus
… Respondent
Appearance :
Mr. Salunke, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Lade, A.P.P. for respondent.
CORAM : SHRI. S.D. KULKARNI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 22/08/2022.
ORDER
.
This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of
Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with
CR.No.945/2022 registered with Dharavi Police Station for the
commission of offence u/sec.307,504,506(2) of Indian Penal Code and
Sub section 3,25 and 27 of Arms Act 1951 and Section 142 of
Maharashtra Police Act 1951
2.
It is alleged by the applicant / accused that the applicant /
accused married with daughter Nazneen of informant prior to four
years. The allegation of the prosecution that applicant / accused given
2
B.A. 1875 OF 22
Rs.40,000/ towards his wife to keep save with her. Lateron, on
09.07.2022 applicant / accused had been to the house of informant and
demanded the said amount. At the relevant time he had beaten his
brotherinlaw. It is alleged by the applicant / accused that he falsely
implicated in the present case. He is ready to cooperate with the
Investigating Officer. He is a permanent residence of Mumbai. He was
falsely implicated in the present case to keep him behind the bar so as
to take revenge against him. As there is strained relation between the
applicant / accused and his wife. Therefore, applicant / accused prayed
to release him on bail.
3.
Prosecution opposed the application on a ground that the
presence of applicant / accused at the spot of incident is easily seen in
C.C.T.V. footage therefore, it could not be said that he was falsely
implicated in the present case. The prosecution has given the list of
offences registered against the applicant / accused which shows that in
all 16 offences registered against him and he was externment for two
years then also he has committed the alleged crime. The offence is
serious in nature. Applicant / accused used pistol or revolver in the
commission of offence therefore, prayed for rejection of the application.
4.
The intervener i.e. first informant appeared in the matter
and filed affidavit in support of their application filed by the applicant /
accused for grant of bail. The informant stated that in high
temperament she has lodged the report against the applicant / accused.
She has no objection to release accused on bail.
5.
Perused application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard all
the advocates at length.
3
6.
B.A. 1875 OF 22
The advocate for the applicant / accused relied on the ratio
laid down in the case of Rajesh Babanandan Shah @ Damchya V/s.
The State of Maharashtra 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1952 therein the
Hon’ble High Court held that there is no recovery at the instance of
applicant / accused. Chargesheet is filed merely because there are
some other cases pending against the applicant / accused that could not
be a ground to continue the custody of the accused. The advocate for
the applicant / accused submitted that he has filed on record the
Judgment in Sessions Case No.871/11. He was acquitted from the same
case. The advocate for the applicant / accused also relied on the ratio
laid down in the case of Raosaheb Patole V/s. The State of
Maharashtra Cr.B.A. 373/11 therein also the Hon’ble High Court held
that accused was refusing bail as there were as many as 28 crime
registered against the accused of similar nature. This can not be the
ground for refusing bail to the applicant / accused.
7.
It is come on record that the informant herself filed
affidavit on record and given no objection to grant bail to the
applicant / accused. On the other hand the prosecution has filed on
record copy of list of 16 cases which applicant / accused is involved.
Therefore, advocate for the applicant / accused submitted that pending
criminal cases against the accused can not be a ground for refusing of
bail.
8.
I have gone through the say filed by the prosecution as well
as report lodged by the informant Nasim Shaikh therein it is stated that
applicant / accused used revolver or pistol and tried to shoot his
brotherinlaw but bullet not hit to him and he had not sustained any
injury. The allegation of the prosecution that though applicant /
4
B.A. 1875 OF 22
accused is under externment from the jurisdiction then also he came
there and quarrel with informant.
9.
On going through the say filed by the prosecution it reveals
that therein statement of informant and witnesses yet to be recorded as
per Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. For that purpose custodial
interrogation of the applicant / accused is not justified. No one has
sustained injury in this case only serious allegation against the applicant
/ accused that he fire on the son of the informant but no one sustained
injury. Therefore, in my opinion applicant / accused is in custody since
last one month. Informant had filed affidavit and submitted that she
had lodged report due to anger and she has no objection to release him
on bail. The wife of the applicant / accused also filed affidavit who is a
daughter of informant. She also submitted that the applicant / accused
have no ill intention against the informant and her family. Hence, in my
opinion applicant / accused is entitled for release on bail. Considering
this I pass the following order :
ORDER
1]
Bail Application No.1875/2022 is allowed.
2]
Applicant / Accused Khaiyamuddin Moinuddin Sayyad @ Kayyam
arrested in CR.No.945/2022 under Section 307,504,506(2) of Indian
Penal Code and Sub section 3,25 and 27 of Arms Act 1951 and Section
142 of Maharashtra Police Act 1951 registered at Dharavi Police Station
be released on P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 50,000/ with one or two surety/s.
3]
The applicant / accused shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence in any manner.
5
4]
B.A. 1875 OF 22
The applicant / accused shall attend the concerned police station
twice a week i.e. on every Wednesday and Saturday between 12:00
p.m. to 04:00 p.m. till further order.
5]
Provisional cash bail in the like amount is allowed. The accused
shall furnish surety within 4 weeks from the date of release from jail
failing which the cash bail shall stand forfeited without any separate
order to that effect.
6]
The applicant / accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
7]
Bail before the learned Trial Court.
SANTOSH
DIGAMBAR
KULKARNI
Date : 22/08/2022.
Digitally signed
by SANTOSH
DIGAMBAR
KULKARNI
Date:
2022.08.29
15:34:47 +0530
( S.D. Kulkarni )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed by HHJ on
: 22.08.2022
: 23.08.2022
: 25.08.2022
6
B.A. 1875 OF 22
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
26/08/2022
02.00 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri.
Room No.)
S.D. Kulkarni,
Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 22/08/2022
ORDER signed by P.O. on
25/08/2022
ORDER uploaded on
26/08/2022