BA 630/2024
:1:
MHCC020040892024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 630 OF 2024
Zaeem Javed Shaikh @ Parvez
]…Applicant/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
]
(At the instance of Deonar Police Station,
]
Mumbai Vide C.R.No. 90/2024)
]…Respondent
Appearance :Mr. S.K. Ali, Ld. Advocate for the Applicant/accused.
Mr. O.S. Maraskolhe, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 18TH 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. 90/2024 registered at
Deonar police station for offences punishable under Sections 307, 143,
144, 147, 148 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and Sections 37(1)(A), 135 of
Maharashtra Police Act and Sections 4, 25 of Indian Arms Act.

BA 630/2024
2.

:2:
Applicant/accused submitted that he has not committed
any crime. He is falsely implicated in alleged offence. There is no iota of
evidence to show that present applicant has direct or indirect
relationship with the offence. Applicant/accused submitted that he will
abide all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Hence,
applicant/accused submitted that he be released on regular bail in
connection of C.R. No. 90/2024 registered at Deonar police station.
3.

Investigating officer submitted the say at Exh.02 and
resisted bail application on the ground that investigation is in progress.
Accused persons formed unlawful assembly and committed serious
offence. If bail is granted to the applicant/accused, then he will tamper
prosecution witnesses and will destroy evidence. Lastly, investigating
officer prayed for rejection of bail application.
4.

Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. S.K. Ali for applicant/accused and
Ld. APP O.S. Maraskolhe for respondent/State at length.
5.

On perusal of case papers it revealed that on the basis of
the report lodged by the informant namely Arbaz Asif Khan, Deonar
police station registered the offence punishable under Sections for
offences punishable under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of
I.P.C. and Sections 37(1)(A), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act and
Sections 4, 25 of Indian Arms Act against the accused persons. It is
alleged that on 3.03.2024 at about 6.00 p.m. at A block, Deonar Colony
Garden, Govandi, Mumbai accused Tausif assaulted to witness Yasim on
head and neck by means of sword. Accused Tabrej, Parvej, Vishal,
Tushar, Sharif formed unlawful assembly and they assaulted to
informant and his brother Yasim by means of bat, stump and sword and
BA 630/2024
:3:
they attempted to kill them.
6.

Perused contents of this application and say filed by
prosecution. Accused prayed for grant of regular bail. I have gone
through F.I.R. In F.I.R. name of applicant/accused is mentioned as
accused
No.2.

In
F.I.R.

there
are
specific
allegation
against
applicant/accused that applicant/accused alongwith other accused
Tabrez assaulted to the complainant by means of bat, stump and abused
to the complainant. The role of applicant/accused is specifically
mentioned in F.I.R. From the report of I.O. it appears that investigating
officer has recorded memorandum statement of accused Parvez and
recovered the bat from him. Prima facie there is sufficient material on
record to show the involvement of applicant/accused in the crime.
Therefore, he cannot be granted regular bail.
7.

In present case investigating officer mentioned that
investigation is in progress. In my view as investigation is in progress, it
is not proper to enlarge applicant on bail. Alleged offence is serious in
nature. If bail is granted to applicant/accused then he will tamper the
prosecution evidence. There is also possibility that applicant/accused
will destroy the evidence. In these circumstances it is not proper to
grant bail to applicant/accused. Moreover, as per report of investigating
officer other two crimes are registered against applicant/accused at
Deonar police station and Sion police station. If bail is granted to
applicant/accused then he will again commit similar type of offence.
Therefore, it is not proper to grant bail to the applicant/accused.
8.

It is argued by Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused that
accused No.3 has lodged the report against victim and her friend.

BA 630/2024
Hence,
he
:4:
submitted
that
as
cross
case
is
pending,
the
applicant/accused is entitled for bail. Merely because other crimes are
registered against victim, only on that ground, the applicant/accused
cannot be granted regular bail.
9.

Considering the nature of offence and the role played by
the applicant/accused in the crime, I am of the view that alleged
offence is serious in nature and investigation is not completed.
Therefore, applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of regular bail.
Hence, application is liable to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass
following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.630 of 2024 stands rejected.

2.

Order accordingly.

Date : 18.03.2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
HHJ signed on
: 18/03/2024
: 18/03/2024
: 20/03/2024
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
BA 630/2024
:5:
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time
21/03/2024 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 18/03/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 20/03/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 21/03/2024
on