Mumbai, July 18, 2022 – Rashid Akhtar Shoaib Ahmed Khan @ Kanya, accused in a violent assault case, has been granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Menjoge. The court, after reviewing the case diary, noted that while Khan’s name was mentioned in the FIR and he was alleged to have held a knife to the complainant’s neck, no actual injury was caused by him.

Khan was arrested in connection with Crime No. 572/2022 registered at Shivajinagar Police Station. He was charged under Sections 141, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 326, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 37(1)(A) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

Background of the Case:

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Wasim Ali, who alleged that Khan, along with Saddam and others, had demanded Rs. 10,000 from him. Later, on May 16, 2022, Ali was forcibly taken to a garden near a dumping ground, where he was assaulted. Khan was alleged to have slapped Ali and held a knife to his neck, demanding payment. Other accused were alleged to have used sticks, a spade, and an iron pipe to assault Ali and his brother Nasim, who came to his rescue.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate Zoheb Shaikh, representing Khan, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that no prima facie case was made out against him. He pointed out that Khan’s name was not initially mentioned in the complainant’s report and that he had not actively participated in the incident. Shaikh also highlighted that Khan had been in jail since May 19, 2022, and that his continued detention served no purpose.

Prosecution’s Stance:

Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the State, opposed the bail application, arguing that the offense was serious and that the chargesheet had not yet been filed. He expressed concerns that Khan might pressurize prosecution witnesses if released on bail.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Menjoge, after reviewing the case diary and considering the arguments from both sides, granted bail to Khan. The court noted that while Khan’s name was mentioned in the FIR and he was alleged to have held a knife to the complainant’s neck, no injury was actually caused by him. The court also noted that the knife had already been seized.

“On perusal of the same, it is found that name of present applicant / accused is mentioned in the FIR and role is attributed to him is that he had touch the knife to the neck of the complainant but in fact no injury is caused by him. The knife is already seized. No purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bar, considering the role played by him,” Judge Menjoge stated in his order.

Conditions of Bail:

Khan was granted bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a PR Bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of the like amount.
• He must not pressurize prosecution witnesses.
• He must not commit any offense while on bail.
• He must attend court hearings regularly unless exempted.
• He must provide his correct address to the investigating officer.
• He was also ordered to be released on provisional cash bail of Rs. 15,000 for a duration of four weeks.
• Bail to be furnished before the Learned Magistrate.

Implications:

The decision reflects the court’s consideration of the specific role attributed to the accused and the absence of actual injury caused by him. By imposing conditions, the court aimed to balance the accused’s right to liberty with the need to ensure his presence during the trial and prevent any interference with the judicial process. This case highlights the importance of evaluating the specific circumstances of each accused in a multi-accused case when considering bail.