1
MHCC020049602024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 901 OF 2024
1. Sahil Mukhtar Sahikh
2. Sams Kamar Hayumuddin Shaikh
… Applicants/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through of Trombay Police Station vide … Respondent/State
C.R. No. 120/2024)
Appearance :Mr. Chandan Yadav, Ld. Advocate for applicants/Accused.
Mr. Sachin Patil, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms. Savita Hande, Ld. Advocate for Informant.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 10TH APRIL, 2024
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by applicants/accused under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for releasing
them on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.120/2024
registered with Trombay police station for the offence punishable
under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506(II), 120(B), 114 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
and Sections 4, 25 of Arms Act, Sections 37 (1)(a) r/w 135 of
Maharashtra Police Act.

2
2.

Applicants/accused submitted that they are innocent
and has not committed any crime. Applicants/accused submitted
that they have been falsely implicated in this crime by complainant
out of enmity. There is no any single injury to the complainant.
Complainant has submitted in his affidavit alongwith letter of
advocate and informed to police that Section 307 of I.P.C. is applied
due to mis-understanding. Alleged weapon is already recovered by
the police. Sufficient time has been given to police for investigation.
Further custody of applicants is not required. No purpose will be
served by keeping applicants behind bar. The applicants are ready
to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court. Hence,
applicants/accused persons prayed for grant of regular bail in
connection with C.R. 120/2024 registered with Trombay. police
station.
3.

The Investigation officer submitted reply at Exh.4 and
resisted the application on the ground that offence is serious in
nature. There is involvement of applicants/accused in said crime
and CCTV footage shows their involvement. Statements of eye
witnesses are yet to be recorded.

If bail is granted to
applicants/accused, then they will tamper prosecution witnesses.
Lastly, investigating officer prayed for rejection of bail application.
4.

Informant suo moto appeared in this case and filed
intervention application at Exh.3. He submit that matter is amicably
settled between parties.
5.

Heard
Ld.

Adv.

Mr.

Chandan
Yadav
for
the
applicants/accused, Ld. APP Sachin Patil for Respondent/State and
Ld. Adv. Ms. Savita Hande for informant.

3
6.

Ld. Advocate for informant submitted that complainant
has no objection for allowing bail application. Hence he submitted
for grant of bail application. In support of his submissions he placed
reliance on following rulings :i)
Criminal Appeal No.3619 of 2023 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
Sivamani & Others V/s. State.

ii)
2006 (1) B. CR. C 729 (Goa) before the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court.
Shri Gokuldas Ghadi V/s. State of Goa.

7.

Perused the contents of application and say filed by the
investigating officer. By this application the accused persons prayed
for grant of regular bail. Ld. A.P.P. strongly objected for grant of bail.
I have gone through F.I.R. In F.I.R. the names of both applicants are
mentioned. The allegation levelled against applicant/accused No.1
is that on 26.03.2024 at about 2.05 p.m. complainant and his
brother Sohail and cousin brother Saif Shaikh were talking with
each other. At that time, accused No.1 Sahil Sahikh stopped his
scooter and he took out one sword from bag and assaulted to
complainant by sword on neck. There are allegation that one
Shahid Siddiqui pushed complainant and he was saved. Thus role
of accused No.1 is sufficiently mentioned in F.I.R. Weapon is
recovered from applicant/accused No.1. Prima facie there is
sufficient
material
on
record
to
show
involvement
of
applicant/accused No.1. Moreover investigation is in progress. If
bail is granted to applicant/accused No.1 then work of investigation
4
will
be
hampered.

Hence
bail
cannot
be
granted
to
applicant/accused No.1.
8.

So far as role attributed to applicant/accused No.2 is
concerned,
the
only
allegation
levelled
against
him
that
applicant/accused No.2 Sams Shaikh came there and he assaulted
to brother of complainant by fist blow. Accused No.2 Sams has not
used any weapon. There are no allegation in F.I.R. that
applicant/accused No.2 assaulted to complainant and witnesses and
attempted to kill them. Thus role assigned to accused No.2 is very
limited one. Nothing has been recovered from him. So far as
accused No.2 is concerned, investigation is practically completed.
Hence, he is entitled for grant of regular bail.
9.

In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of view that
accused No.1 is not entitled for grant of bail. However, accused
No.2 is entitled for grant of regular bail. Therefore, the bail
application needs to be partly allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass
following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal
Bail
Application
No.901
of
2024
filed
by
applicants/accused persons is partly allowed.
2.

Criminal Bail Application No.901 of 2024 in respect of
applicant/accused
No.1 Sahil Mukhtar Sahikh
stands
rejected.
3.

Applicant/accused No.2 namely Sams Kamar Hayumuddin
Shaikh, resident of Boradevi nagar opposite Deonar Depot
5
Sion Trombay Road Chembur Mumbai 400 088, be released
on regular bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- along
with one or more sureties in like amount in connection with
C.R. No. 120/2024 registered with Trombay Police Station
for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504,
506(II), 120(B), 114 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and section 04, 25 of
Arms Act, section 37 (1)(a) r/w 135 of M.P. Act on following
conditions :(a) The applicant/accused No.2 is directed to attend the
concerned police station on every Sunday in between 11:00
a.m. to 01:00 noon till filing of the charge-sheet.
(b) The applicant/accused No.2 is directed not to commit
similar types of offence.
(c) The applicant/accused No.2 and his sureties shall provide
their respective residential addresses, mobile numbers and
email addresses, if any to investigation officer. The
applicant/accused shall intimate any such change in address
or telephone number and Email ID forthwith.
(d) The applicant/accused No.2 should not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade them
from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and
should not tamper with the evidence and prosecution
witnesses.
(e) The applicants/accused No.2 shall not leave India
6
without prior permission of Sessions Court.
(f) Breach of any conditions by the applicant/accused no.2,
shall result in cancellation of bail.
4.

Provisional cash bail of Rs.25,000/- is allowed to the
applicant/accused No.2 for period of 4 weeks to furnish
surety from the date of release.

5.

Bail before Ld. Trial Court.

6.

Criminal Bail Application No.901 of 2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 10.04.2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
HHJ signed on
: 10/04/2024
: 10/04/2024
: 12/04/2024
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
7
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time
15/04/2024 5.35 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 10/04/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 12/04/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 15/04/2024
on