MHCC020100502022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1847 OF 2022
(C. R. NO.695 OF 2022, SHIVAJI NAGAR POLICE STATION)
CNR NO. : MHCC02-010050-2022
Mehtab Laeq Khan,
]
Aged about 23 years, Occ. : Service,
]
R/o. : Plot No.28/H/10, Road No.4,
]
Shivaji Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043. ]
… Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through Sr. Inspector of Police,
Shivaji Nagar police station.

]
]
]
… Respondent
Ld. Adv. Mr. S. K. Ali for applicant.
Ld. APP Mr. Ramesh Siroya for the respondent/State.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Altaf Khan for first informant/intervener.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI. M. S. KULKARNI (C.R. NO.56)
DATE : 29th August, 2022.
(DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT)
ORAL ORDER
1.

This bail application is in respect of C.R. No.698 of 2022
registered with Shivaji Nagar police station dated 24/06/2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 r/w. Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2.

The applicant/accused was arrested on 24/06/2022 and
-2-
BA 1847/2022
remanded to police custody till 25/06/2022 and since 25/06/2022, he
has been in judicial custody.
3.

As per the First Information Report given by Aavesh @
Aman Kayyum Alam Shaikh, 17 years old, he has friends namely Bagga
@ Kaif and Ovi @ Aavesh. They all had gathered on 23/06/2022, at
about 11.50 p.m. at Muslim Fund Bank, Plot Nos.30 and 31, Shivaji
Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai to celebrate birthday of their one more friend
namely Ajju. The applicant/accused and other accomplice namely
Shahid and Sameer came there. The applicant/accused and his
accomplice started to tease Bagga. So, the first informant warned them
not to tease him.

At that time, the applicant/accused and his
accomplice started to assault the first informant with abusement.
Meanwhile, the applicant/accused Mehtab dealt blow of iron rod on the
head of the first informant with intention to kill him. Then, they all ran
away. The first informant was taken at first to Shatabdi Hospital where
from he was referred to the Sion Hospital.
4.

The applicant/accused has asked for bail on the ground that
he has been falsely implicated. The present F.I.R. is the counterblast to
the F.I.R. lodged by him against the first informant and his accomplice.
The first informant has already been discharged from the Hospital.
Investigation is already over. Nothing is remained to be recovered from
him. The applicant/accused is just 23 years old.
5.

The first informant has filed intervention application which
came to be allowed. He has strongly opposed the bail.
6.

I have heard Adv. Mr. S. K. Ali for applicant, learned
-3-
BA 1847/2022
Advocate Mr. Altaf Khan for the first informant/intervener and learned
A.P.P. Mr. Ramesh Siroya for the respondent/State at length.
7.

The first informant/intervener has placed on record his
medical documents and his photographs showing gravity of injury
sustained by him.
8.

At the time of argument, the Advocate for intervener gave
stress on the medical report of the first informant. He gave extra stress
on the C.T. Brain report. He also showing photographs submitted that
applicant/accused shall not be released on bail.
9.

No doubt, the medical documents and photographs
produced on record by the first informant disclose what kind of injury
he had sustained. But, the fact is that he was discharged from the
hospital on 05/07/2022. In short, he was indoor patient for near about
11 days and during said period, he was required to undergo medical
surgery.
10.

In the case of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation 2012 CRI.L.J. 702 through paragraph
Nos.14, 15 and 16, it is laid down as ;
“14.
In bail applications, generally, it has
been laid down from the earliest times that the
object of bail is to be secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount
of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it can be
required to ensure that an accused person will
stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe
-4-
BA 1847/2022
more than verbal respect to the principle that
punishment begins after conviction, and that
every man is deemed to be innocent until duly
tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest
times, it was appreciated that detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a
cause of great hardship. From time to time,
necessity demands that some un-convicted
persons should be held in custody pending trial to
secure their attendance at the trial but in such
cases, ‘necessity’ is the operative test. In this
country, it would be quite contrary to the concept
of persona liberty enshrined in the Constitution
that any person should be punished in respect of
any matter, upon which, he has not been
convicted or that in any circumstances, he should
be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that
he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty,
save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
Apart from the question of prevention being the
object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight
of the fact that any imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content and
it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail
as a mark of disapproval of former conduct
whether the accused has been convicted for it or
not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for
the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment
as a lesson.
15.
In the instant case, as we have already
noticed that the “pointing finger of accusation”
against the appellants is ‘the seriousness of the
charge’. The offences alleged are economic
offences which has resulted in loss to the State
Exchequer. Though, they contend that there is
possibility of the appellants tampering witnesses,
they have not placed any material in support of
-5-
BA 1847/2022
the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the
charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant
considerations while considering bail applications
but that is not the only test or the factor: The
other factor that also requires to be taken note of
is the punishment that could be imposed after
trial and conviction, both under the Indian Penal
Code and Prevention of Corruption Act.
Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would
not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but
rather “recalibration of the scales of justice”. The
provisions of Cr.P. C.
confer discretionary
jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to
accused pending trial or in appeal against
convictions since the jurisdiction is discretionary,
it has to be exercised with great care and caution
by balancing valuable right of liberty of an
individual and the interest of the society in
general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by
the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by
the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the
whole basis of our system of law and normal rule
of bail system. It transcends respect for the
requirement that a man shall be considered
innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is
recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation
and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an
individual. This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42: (AIR 2005
SC 921), observed that “ under the criminal laws
of this country, a person accused of offences
which are non-bailable, is liable to be detained in
custody during the pendency of trial unless he is
enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such
detention cannot be questioned as being violative
of Article 21 of the Constitution, since the same is
same is authorized by law. But even persons
accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to
-6-
BA 1847/2022
bail if the Court concerned comes to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
establish a prima facie case against him and/or if
the Court is satisfied by reasons to be recorded
that in spite of the existence of prima facie case,
there is need to release such accused on bail,
where fact situations require it to do so.
16.
This court, time and again, has stated
that bail is the rule and committal to jail an
exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail
is a restriction on the personal liberty of the
individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.
Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308: (AIR 1977 SC
2447), this Court opined:
“2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put
as bail, not jail, except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice
or thwarting the course of justice or creating
other troubles in the shape of repeating
offences or intimidating witnesses and the like,
by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on
bail from the Court. We do not intend to be
exhaustive but only illustrative.
3. It is true that the gravity of the offence
involved is likely to induce the petitioner to
avoid the course of justice and must weigh
with us when considering the question of jail.
So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so,
the record of the petitioner in this case is that,
while he has been on bail throughout in the
trial court and he was released after the
judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to
suggest that he was abused the trust placed in
him by the court; his social circumstances also
are not so unfavourable in the sense of his
-7-
BA 1847/2022
being a desperate character or unsocial
element who is likely to betray the confidence
that the court may place in him to turn up to
take justice at the hands of the court. He is
stated to be a young man of 27 years with a
family to maintain. The circumstances and the
social milieu do not militate against the
petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At
the same time any possibility of the absconsion
or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of
by a direction that the petitioner will report
himself before the police station at Baren Once
every fortnight.”
11.

The applicant/accused has been behind bars since more
than two months. No purpose will be served if he is kept behind bars for
further period. Investigation is already over. Weapon has been
recovered.

If
some
stringent
conditions
are
put
on
the
applicant/accused, no prejudice will be caused to the first informant as
well as State. Hence, the order :ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.1847 of 2022 is allowed.

2.
Applicant/accused Mehtab Laeq Khan is released on bail in
C.R. No.698 of 2022 on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only) with one or more sureties in the like amount.
3.
Provisional cash security of Rs.50,000/- is allowed, which
will remain in force for two months. Meanwhile the applicant/accused
has to furnish surety as directed above.
4.

He shall not flee from justice.

5.
evidence.

He shall not pressurise witnesses and tamper with the
-8-
BA 1847/2022
6.
He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in
investigation.
7.
He shall attend Shivaji Nagar police station on every
Monday and Thursday in between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. till filing of
the charge-sheet.
8.

He shall not meet the first informant till conclusion of trial.

9.

Bail before the Lower Court.

10.
Bail Application No.1847 of 2022 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 29/08/2022.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Corrected on
Printed on
Signed on
:
:
:
:
:
29/08/2022.
12 and 13/09/2022.
14/09/2022.
14/09/2022.

( M. S. Kulkarni )
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
For Greater Bombay.

-9-
BA 1847/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
14/09/2022 at 3.35 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Bahushruta Y. Jambhale
Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Shri M. S. Kulkarni,
Room No.)
(Court Room No.56)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 29/08/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
14/09/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
14/09/2022.