Bail Application No.398/2024.
MHCC020027062024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 398 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 502 OF 2023.
Nazir Ahmed Abdul Aziz Khan @ Guddu
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Wadala T. T. Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.502/2023).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Arun Gupta a/w Ld. Adv. Mr. Avadhesh Kanojiya for the
Applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Nazir Ahmed Abdul Aziz
Khan @ Guddu being accused in C.R.No.502/2023 registered with
Wadala T. T. Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.398/2024.
307, 323 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter
referred to as, “IPC”) alongwith Section 37 (1) (a) and 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

Applicant/accused had herein before filed an application
for enlargement on bail prior to filing of charge-sheet. Hence the
facts of the case are reproduced for the purposes of convenience. It is
the case of the prosecution that, as on 24.10.2023 at about 5.00 pm
the victim/injured Irfan Ansari had parked his vehicle near the
Hosiery Shop, adjacent to Nisan Dairy, in order to load the cloth
material for the purposes of transportation, at that time the residents
of the said area namely Arman, Guddu i.e. applicant/accused and
Halim assaulted the informant on his neck, waist and left thigh.
While the injured victim tried to flee from the spot, the
applicant/accused and Halim assaulted him by kicks and blows, but
still the informant succeeded in escaping from the said spot. Further,
the informant went ahead and got unconscious at a shop nearby.
Thereafter, he was hospitalized and offence was registered under
Sections ibid.

3.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated and arrested upon suspicious
ground. It is further stated that, the role assigned with regard to
assault of grievous nature is with regard to the co-accused and that
the applicant is only attributed with the role of assaulting the
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.398/2024.
injured/victim by kicks and blows and thus motive cannot be
gathered with regard to the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC which
apparently do not attract.

Further, it is stated that, the
applicant/accused was not present at the spot of incident and that he
was at Talasari, Palghar which is far away from the spot and is only
arrested on the basis of suspicion. Further, the victim has not
specified the role of the applicant/accused. As per the Ld. Advocate
for applicant/accused the documents to that effect are appended
alongwith the application. Furthermore, he stated that, there is prior
animosity between either party. Further the injury shown is simple in
nature. Thus, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused stated that, the
further incarceration of the applicant/accused is not necessitated.
Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for enlarging
the applicant/accused on bail.
4.

Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2,
and inter alia have resisted the application upon various grounds. It is
categorically stated that the role of the applicant/accused has been
clearly located. As per prosecution three eye witnesses have
categorically stated for the presence of the applicant/accused at the
spot at the relevant time of commission of crime. Further the it were
the applicant/accused and the co-accused who facilitated for such
assault as the applicant/accused and the co-accused had caught hold
of the victim.

Further, the Ld. Prosecutor states that, the injury
certificate although state for the injuries to be simple but there are in
all 8 stab injuries out of which one is on the chest and therefore, the
intention can be well gathered. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for
rejection of application.
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.398/2024.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for Applicant/accused and Ld.
Prosecutor for the State. Perused application and reply.

6.

It is pertinent that, the applicant/accused has opted for a
plea of alibi, and has stated that the applicant/accused at the relevant
time of incident was not at the spot and was at Talasari, Palghar. In
order to substantiate the same nothing has been placed on the record
except tax invoice and slip. On the earlier occasion an affidavit filed
by some individual stating for the presence of the applicant/accused
at some other place was filed. It is pertinent at this juncture nothing
to that effect have been placed on record except bare contentions.

7.

Furthermore, it is pertinent that considering the incident it
is stated that the either of the accused person have assaulted the
victim and further have also stated for the fact that as the victim
tried to flee from the spot the applicant/accused and the co-accused
again assaulted him with kicks and blows. Therefore the role of the
applicant/accused can be well ascertained. Apart from the same, the
quantum of injuries and the body part being chosen for assault will
naturally deserve consideration.

8.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

9.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments as advanced by the
Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused it is evident that the role of the
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.398/2024.
applicant/accused is stated in conjunction with that of the coaccused, therefore, the role of the applicant/accused cannot be dealt
in isolation. More especially when the applicant in connivance with
the co-accused have assaulted the injured/victim and that Section 34
of IPC is invoked. As stated supra, three eye witnesses have stated
for the presence of the applicant/accused at the spot. Further, it is
contended in the application that this Court while rejecting earlier
application had observed for the reason that investigation is under
progress and that CCTV footage is not tendered by prosecution. It is
pertinent that the observation of this Court is not properly read and
that this Court has palpably stated that prosecution cannot be
directed to produce such footage. Therefore, as stated supra, the
presence of the applicant/accused at this juncture is well located.
Therefore, I do not find this as a fit case for grant of bail as there is
every possibility of tampering of evidence.

In the backdrop of
aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application deserves no consideration.
Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.398/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 22.02.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.02.26
12:50:45 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 22.02.2024.
Transcribed on : 22.02.2024.
HHJ signed on : 23.02.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.398/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
26.02.2024
12.50 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
22.02.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
23.02.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
26.02.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6