Mumbai, October 17, 2022 – In a ruling that balances the severity of the alleged offense with the progress of the investigation, the Additional Sessions Judge Mrs. Madhuri M. Deshpande (Court Room No. 41) granted bail to Sameer Babu Ahmad Shaikh in connection with an attempted murder case registered at Dongri Police Station (C.R. No. 284 of 2022). The court’s decision was primarily based on the filing of the charge sheet and the imposition of stringent conditions to address the prosecution’s concerns.

Background of the Case:

Sameer Babu Ahmad Shaikh, a 30-year-old service professional residing in Dongri, was arrested for allegedly attempting to murder his wife, Sau. Shaien Sameer Shaikh. According to the prosecution, the complainant, who had been living separately from her husband at her parents’ house, was attacked by Shaikh with a wooden pestle on May 14, 2022. The incident occurred when Shaikh, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, insisted that she return to his house. When she refused, he reportedly assaulted her, causing grievous injuries.

Arguments Presented:

Mr. R.V. Gupta, the advocate representing Shaikh, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that the incident occurred during a domestic dispute. He emphasized that Shaikh had no criminal antecedents, was the sole breadwinner of his family, and was willing to cooperate with the police. He asserted that the offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not made out and that his continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.

Mrs. Rajlaxmi Bhandari, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) representing the State, opposed the bail application. She argued that the charge sheet had been filed, and the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) had been recorded. She expressed concerns that Shaikh might pressurize witnesses and the complainant if released on bail, and noted that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was still pending.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Deshpande noted that the previous bail application had been rejected while the investigation was ongoing. However, with the charge sheet now filed, the court considered the progress of the case. The medical report indicated that while one injury was simple, two were grievous. The court also acknowledged the prosecution’s apprehension regarding witness tampering.

“The apprehension of prosecution can be taken care of by imposing certain stringent conditions upon the applicant/accused,” Judge Deshpande stated in her oral order.

Considering that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet was filed, and the trial was not expected to commence soon, the court decided to grant bail to Shaikh, subject to stringent conditions.

“Considering the fact that investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed and trial will not commence soon, I am of the view that, it will be just and proper to allow this application and to release the accused on bail by imposing some stringent conditions,” the judge observed.

Consequently, the court granted bail to Sameer Babu Ahmad Shaikh, ordering his release upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two local solvent sureties of the same amount.

The court imposed several conditions, including that Shaikh must not influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, leave India without permission, change his address without informing the court, enter the complainant’s residence or workplace, commit similar offenses, and must file an undertaking that he will not cause any injury to her.

Implications and Significance:

This ruling highlights the court’s approach to balancing the severity of the alleged offense with the progress of the investigation and the rights of the accused. The decision underscores the importance of the charge sheet filing in bail considerations and the court’s willingness to impose stringent conditions to address prosecution concerns.

The case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair trials and protecting the rights of both the accused and the complainant. The imposition of stringent conditions reflects the court’s effort to mitigate potential risks while upholding the principle of individual liberty.

The order was dictated on October 15, 2022, transcribed on the same day, checked and corrected on October 17, 2022, and signed and uploaded on the same day at 12:50 p.m.