1
MHNS010035482022
Order below Exh. 1 in Criminal Bail
Application No. 873/2022.
1.

This is an application moved by the applicant/accused Sameer
@ Badshah Gayasuddin Shaikh under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in C.R.No. I­58/2022 registered against accused at Bhadrakali
Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 307, 143, 147,
148, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the
Mumbai Police Act.
2.

It is submitted by the accused that he has not committed any
offence and has been falsely implicated in the crime. Earlier bail
application was rejected however uterus operation of wife of applicant is
to be carried on and due to love marriage his mother­in­law also reside
with him. She is also having medical aliment. Investigation is completed
and charge­sheet has been filed. Nothing has to be recovered at the
instance of accused. Already co­accused are released on bail but only
present accused is in jail therefore on the ground of parity he prayed for
bail. Applicant/accused did not cause any grievous injury to the
complainant and there is no danger to his life. Injured is discharge from
the Hospital. Section 307 of IPC is not attracted against present accused.
He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions, hence, prayed to
allow the application.
3.

Say was called of the investigating officer. He has objected
this application on the count that, accused has committed offence against
2
the body which was witnessed by independent witnesses which clearly
reflects the involvement of the present accused. There are three offence
pending against the present accused, if he is released on bail he will
threaten the witnesses and destroy the evidence.

Present accused has
history of political background and elections are nearing in Nashik
Municipal Corporation. There is possibility that if accused is released he
along with his associates will create further dispute between them by
committing similar type of offence or more serious offence than the
present crime may occur. Earlier bail application has been rejected.
Charge­sheet is already filed. Hence, prayed that application be rejected.
4.

Heard Ld. APP and Ld. Advocate for accused. It is submitted
by the Advocate for accused that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Medical
certificate is forged as complainant has not sustained injury. Mother of his
wife is suffering from cancer whereas the uterus of his wife is to be
operate.

Offence u/s. 307 is not attracted hence prayed that bail be
granted.
5.

Investigating Officer and Ld. APP for the state have strongly
objected this application on the ground that applicant is a main accused.
Injury is caused to the complainant. Delay is explained. No ground has
been made to consider the present application again. There is no change
in circumstances. Hence, prayed that bail application be rejected.
6.

Perused the charge­sheet. At the outset it needs to be stated
that this is a second bail application. On considering the grounds of this
application except for the illness of the wife of the accused and his
mother­in­law no new ground has been stated to consider this application.
It is settled position that filing of charge­sheet is no change in
circumstances. Advocate of the accused relied upon :­
3
1)
Mr. Gautam Volvoikar S/o Laxman Volvoikar Vs. State.

Reported in 2020 (2) AIR Bom. R (Cri) 351. Wherein Hon’ble Court held
that Bail – Attempt to murder – Investigation completed – Charge sheet is
filed. Co accused persons including main accused already enlarge on bail.
Bail granted.
2)
Ramesh Bali Vs. State of Maharashtra. Reported in 2018
ALL MR (Crimes) 912 wherein Hon’ble Court held that, accused no. 2
being similarly charge has been released on bail, hence, bail was granted.
Perused both the citations. The Hon’ble Court has held that on due
deference to the principle of parity there is no reason to detain the
accused in custody.

However, the present bail application does not
mention any ground of parity to consider the present application. Hence,
it is not applicable.
3)
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. Reported
in Criminal Appeal No. 159/2012 wherein the accused was habitual
criminal having criminal background with more than three dozen cases
involving serious offence.
Perused the citation. Hon’ble Court has held that merely on
the basis of criminal antecedents claim can not be rejected. However, the
present application has been decided as there is no change in
circumstances to consider the present application. Hence, above citation
is not applicable.
7.

On perusing the FIR specific role has been attributed to the
present accused who had removed knife and assaulted the complainant on
his head by stating that he will kill him. Medical certificate reflects that
there is injury on scalp of the complainant and grievous injury has been
caused. In such circumstances no new ground have been made by the
accused for considering the bail application. Prima facie involvement of
the accused is reflected. Accused is charge for serious offence, if he is
4
released on bail there is every possibility he may be tamper and hamper
the prosecution witnesses, hence, I am not inclined to consider the present
application and proceed to pass following order :­
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.

Nashik.
Date : 25/07/2022.

Sd/­xxx
(V.S.Malkalpatte­Reddy)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.