IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR.BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1653 OF 2022
CNR NO.MHCC02-009027-2022
Mohd.Akbar Akram Shaikh
Age : 29 years.
R/a: Zopada No.457, Indiranagar,
Burma Shell Railway Line,
Nehru Nagar, Mumbai.

… Applicant/Accused
Versus
State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Nehru Nagar
Police Station.)

… Respondent.

Ld. Advocate Mr. Sushrut Jadhwar for applicant/accused.
Ld.APP Mr. Ramesh Siroya for the State.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI.M.S.KULKARNI (C.R.NO.56)
DATED : 4th August, 2022
(DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT)
ORAL ORDER
1.

This bail application is in respect of C.R.No.255/2022
registered with Nehru Nagar Police Station dated 26.04.2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 read with
Section 34 of the I.P.Code.
2.

The applicant/accused was arrested on 23.6.2022 and
remanded to police custody till 24.6.2022 and since 24.6.2022 he has
been in judicial custody.
3.

FIR was registered by Hasan Rafiq Sayyed. As per
:2:
information given by the first informant other two victims namely Asif
and Javed are his friends.

On 26.4.2022 in the midnight 3.30 a.m.

when the first informant had been on the railway line to bring the meal
for the Seheri being the Ramjan Eid month, he saw that the altercation
was going on in between other victims on one part and the
applicant/accused and his accomplice namely Kallu on other part. The
first informant went near the mob and he found that applicant/accused
had taken bite on the left cheek of the victim namely Javed. Accomplice
Kalu also assaulted victim Javed. So the first informant separated him
from them. Meanwhile the applicant/accused took bite on the left hand
thumb of the another victim namely Asif.

At the same time the
accomplice Kallu caught hold Asif and knocked him down and the
applicant/accused dealt blow of knife on his back.

When the first
informant went to save Asif the accomplice Kallu caught hold the first
informant from back side while the applicant/accused dealt blow of
knife on the chest of the first informant. When the first informant tried
to catch the said blow, he sustained injury on the left hand palm also.
He
sustained bleeding injury on chest as well as left hand palm.

Meanwhile the applicant/accused and his accomplice Kallu flee away.
The first informant and other victim were taken to the Rajawadi
hospital where they were provided medical aid.
4.

The applicant/accused has asked for bail on the ground
that he has been falsely implicated. Weapon in crime is recovered.
Nothing is remained to be recovered from him and he is ready to abide
by the conditions.
5.

The prosecution has strongly objected bail on the ground
that if the applicant/accused is released on bail, he may commit same
:3:
offence. He would pressurize the witness and flee from the justice.
6.

I heard Learned advocate Mr. Sushrut Jadhwar for
applicant and Learned APP Mr. Siroya at length.
7.

From the reply of the investigating officer one fact is clear
that though it is said that the applicant/accused dealt blow of knife on
back of Asif, his medical certificate shows that he has sustained simple
injuries. Next fact is that though in the reply it is stated that the first
informant has sustained grievous injuries, no his medical report has
been put on record by the prosecution.

Whatever may be the first
informant and other victims have been discharged from the hospital and
no danger to their life. Investigation is already over.
8.

In the case of Hon’ble Apex in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation 2012 CRI.L.J.702 through para 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 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
:4:
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 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
:5:
“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 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
:6:
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
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.”
:7:
9.

The applicant/accused has been behind bar since more
than one month. If some stringent conditions are put on them a fair as
expressed by the prosecution will be safeguarded. Hence order;
ORDER
1. Bail application No.1653 of 2022 is allowed.
2. Applicant/accused Mohd. Akbar Akram Shaikh is released on bail in
C.R.No.255/2022 on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
Thousand only) with one or more surety in the same amount.
3. Provisional cash security of Rs.30,000/- 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.He shall not tamper with the evidence and co-operate with the
investigating officer in investigation.
6. He shall attend Nehru Nagar Police St. on every Monday in between
10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. till filing of the charge-sheet.
7. Bail before the Lower Court.
8. Bail Application No. 1653/2022 stands disposed off accordingly.

Date : 04.08.2022.
Dictated on
Typed on
draft checked on
Retyped on
Signed on
: 04.08.2022.
: 05.08.2022.
: 06.08.2022
: 08.08.2022
: 08.08.2022
(M.S.Kulkarni)
Addl.Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
For Greater Bombay
:8:
“ CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
: 8.08.2022 at 12.10 p.m.
: Mrs.Prajakta K. More
NAME OF THE JUDGE
HHJ SHRI.M.S.Kulkarni
(C.R.No.56)
Date of Pronouncement of Order
04.08.2022
Order signed by the P.O. On
08.08.2022
Order uploaded on
08.08.2022