1
MHCC020023402024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 320 OF 2024
Mohd. Azizur Rehman Sayyed @ Rana
… Applicant/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through of R.C.F. Police Station vide C.R.
No. 645/2023)
… Respondent/State
Appearance :Mr. Mikhail Deepak Dey, Ld. Advocate for Applicant/Accused.
Mr. Sachin Patil, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms. Sushmita Sarkar, Ld. Advocate for Intervener.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 11TH MARCH, 2024
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by applicant/accused under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for releasing
him on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.645/2023 registered
with R.C.F. police station for the offence punishable under Sections
364(A), 394, 387, 323, 341, 342, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2
2.

According to applicant/accused, he is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in this crime. He has not committed any
crime. There is no role attributed to applicant/accused. Even the
entire allegation are taken to be true, the applicant can not be said
to be responsible for alleged offence. The applicant is ready and
willing to co-operate with respondent. He is ready to abide by all
the terms and conditions imposed by the Court.

Hence,
applicant/accused prayed for grant of regular bail in connection
with C.R. No.645/2023 registered with R.C.F. police station.
3.

The Investigation officer submitted reply at Exh.02 and
resisted the application on the ground that applicant/accused is
principal accused and he has committed the crime alongwith other
accused persons. Applicant/accused is habitual offender. He has
committed
serious
offence.

If
bail
is
granted
to
the
applicant/accused, then he will tamper the prosecution witnesses
and will abscond. Investigating officer further submitted that if the
bail is granted to applicant/accused then he will not remain present
for trial. Lastly, investigating officer prayed for rejection of bail
application.
4.

Intervener suo motu appeared in this case and filed
application for intervention at Exh.4 and contended that accused
has been wrongly prosecuted by police. He undertakes to file no
objection before Court.
5.

Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Mikhail Deepak Dey for the
applicant/accused
and
Ld.

APP
Mr.

Sachin
Patil
for
3
Respondent/State at length. I also heard Ld. Advocate Ms. Sushmita
Sarkar for intervener.
6.

On perusal of case papers it appears that on the basis
of the report lodged by the informant namely Mohd. Sarfraj Sheful
Shaikh, R.C.F. police station registered the offence punishable under
Sections 364-A, 394, 387, 323, 341, 342, 504, 506, 34 of I. P .C.
vide C. R. No. 645/2023 against the accused persons. The
informant resides at Vashi Naka, Chembur from last 2 years
alongwith his family members. The informant is doing work of
loading and un-loading of goods at CST Railway station. On
31.10.2023 at about 11.30 p.m. the informant was going from
Nagababa Darga, Vashi Naka, Chembur by his scooty. At that time
accused No.1 Akib @ Batla and accused No.2 Ganesh Subramanium
@ Doreman and Sunita @ Rubina and Rana obstructed the motor
cycle of informant at Nagababa Darga, Vashi Naka, Chembur.
Accused persons parked their motor cycle in front of scooty of
informant and obstructed his way. Accused Akib abused to the
informant in filthy language and he forcibly took the informant at
Tata Nagar, Deonar colony, Govandi, Mumbai. Akib shown knife to
the informant and forcibly removed cash of Rs.10,500/- from the
pocket of pant of informant. Accused persons also removed clothes
of informant. Accused made call to the brother of informant and
demanded ransom amount of Rs.60,000/-. They also gave threat to
kill informant if the amount is not given. Therefore, informant
lodged report against accused persons at RCF police station.
7.

In this case charge-sheet had been filed. Perused
contents of application and say of prosecution. Accused prayed for
4
grant of bail. I have perused entire record. In F.I.R. there are
specific allegation against applicant/accused that he abused and
assaulted to complainant by fist blows. Accused persons demanded
ransom amount of Rs.60,000/- to the brother of informant. They
shown knife to the informant and forcibly removed cash of
Rs.10,500/- from pocket of pant of informant. It appears from
contents of F.I.R. that
allegation levelled against applicant are
serious and grave in nature. Role of applicant/accused is described
in F.I.R. The name of the applicant/accused is mentioned as accused
No.4 in the FIR. There are specific allegation in the FIR that on day
of incident applicant/accused came at Deonar Colony and all
accused persons abused and assaulted to informant by fist blows.
Co-accused Akib by showing knife to informant removed cash of
Rs.10,500/-
from
pocket
of
pant
of
informant.

Role
of
applicant/accused is specifically described in FIR. Therefore, it will
not be proper to enlarge accused on bail.
8.

In present case the offence punishable under Sections
364(A), 394, 387, 323, 341, 342, 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. is
registered against the applicant/accused. Alleged offence is serious
in nature. The offence under Sections 364(A) of I.P.C. is punishable
with imprisonment for life. As offence is serious in nature, it will
not be proper to enlarge accused on bail.
9.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused submitted that the
informant has no objection for allowing the bail application of
applicant/accused. The informant has specifically mentioned in FIR
the role of present applicant/accused in the crime. Practice of filing
of affidavit of informant or witness at the time of deciding bail
5
application is deprecated. The possibility cannot be ruled out that
the accused might have influenced to the informant. Therefore, in
my view the application filed by informant will not help to the
applicant/accused.
10.

Investigating officer has mentioned in his say that
applicant/accused is principal accused and he is having criminal
antecedents. Investigating officer has given crime numbers in his
reply. It appears that accused is having criminal antecedents. If bail
is granted to him, then there is possibility that he will again commit
similar type of offence. Therefore, applicant/accused is not entitled
for grant of bail.
11.

Considering the nature of offence and the role played
by the applicant/accused in the crime, I am of the view that he is
not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, application is liable to be
rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :ORDER
1. Criminal Bail Application No.320 of 2024 stands rejected.
2. Order accordingly.

Date : 11.03.2024
Dictated on
: 11/03/2024
Transcribed on : 12/03/2024
HHJ signed on : 13/03/2024
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
6
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
14/03/2024 2.15 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 11/03/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 13/03/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 14/03/2024
on