Mumbai, May 4th, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Badrujama Nayarebabar Khan, also known as Gattu, a 42-year-old resident of Mahim, who was arrested in connection with a violent assault case in Dharavi. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Purushottam B. Jadhav, allowed the bail application, addressing allegations of conspiracy and claims of parity with a previously bailed co-accused.

Khan was arrested in connection with Crime No. 884 of 2021, registered at the Dharavi Police Station, involving charges under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons¹ or means), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of² fifty rupees), 380 (theft in dwelling house, etc.), 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 109 (abetment) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act, and Section 37(1)(a) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

According to the prosecution, Khan allegedly conspired with other accused to attack the first informant and his brother, Amarjeet Hariprasad Varun (the intervener in this case), due to a perceived insult. On October 2nd, 2021, at approximately 12:45 AM, a group of armed individuals allegedly trespassed into the informant’s office and assaulted the victims with deadly weapons. They also allegedly stole mobile phones and damaged office property.

Khan’s defense, presented by Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay, argued that his client was not present at the scene of the crime and that the allegations of conspiracy were based on circumstantial evidence, primarily call detail records (CDRs). Upadhyay also claimed that Khan was at his native place in Uttar Pradesh at the time of the incident, submitting toll receipts and documents from a village head to support this claim.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor J.N. Suryawanshi, argued that the CDRs indicated constant communication between Khan and other accused, suggesting his involvement. They also highlighted Khan’s criminal history, including 13 registered crimes and two subsequent offenses, and argued that he posed a risk of re-offending and influencing witnesses.

Judge Jadhav, in his order, addressed the allegations of conspiracy and the admissibility of the CDRs. He acknowledged the defense’s argument that the calls could be attributed to familial or friendly relations but noted the presence of a motive and Khan’s alleged leadership of a gang involved in the crime.

“Considering all these circumstances, this Court cannot accept the applicant’s submission that there is no material on record showing his involvement in the present case,” Judge Jadhav stated.

Regarding the defense’s claim of alibi, the court acknowledged the submitted documents but emphasized that the question of Khan’s presence at his native place was a disputed fact.

The court also addressed the defense’s claim of parity with co-accused Parveez, who was previously granted bail. Judge Jadhav distinguished Khan’s case, citing his extensive criminal history, his alleged role as a conspirator, and his subsequent offenses.

“Considering these aspects, it is clear that the case of the applicant is not at par bailed out co-accused Parveez,” Judge Jadhav noted.

However, the court also considered the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims, noting that they were simple injuries, which raised questions about the applicability of serious charges like Section 307 and 326 of the IPC. The court also acknowledged the completion of the investigation and Khan’s prolonged custody.

“That doesn’t mean that therefore, the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. This Court is duty bound to consider the present application independently,” Judge Jadhav stated.

Consequently, the court granted bail to Badrujama Nayarebabar Khan, subject to the following conditions:

• Personal Bond (P.R.) and Surety Bond: Khan must execute a P.R. bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more solvent sureties of the same amount.
• No Influence on Witnesses: He is prohibited from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
• Contact Information: He must provide his detailed address, mobile number, address proof, and identity proof.
• Address Updates: He must inform the court and investigating officer of any changes in his residence or contact number.
• Court Attendance: He must attend court regularly.
• Travel Restrictions: He must not leave the jurisdiction of the court without permission.
• Bail Before Magistrate: Bail is granted before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.

The court’s decision highlights the complex considerations in bail applications, particularly in cases involving conspiracy allegations and claims of parity. The Dharavi Police Station will continue with prosecutions of the case.