Mumbai, April 8, 2024 – Sarvar Akbar Khan, a 40-year-old juice seller, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with an attempted robbery and assault case. Additional Sessions Judge N.P. Tribhuwan (Court Room No. 23) issued the order on April 6, 2024.
Khan was arrested in connection with Crime No. 472/2023, registered at the Pydhonie Police Station, for offenses under Sections 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), 398 (attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon),1 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)2 of the Indian Penal3 Code (IPC), and Section 37/135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Background and Allegations:
On December 22, 2023, Smt. Shilpa Sapan Manna reported that her husband, Sapan Manna, who runs a gold ornament factory, was attacked and stabbed by three unknown individuals while walking towards Masjid Bandar Railway Station. The assailants allegedly attempted to rob him.
Arguments Presented:
Advocate A.R. Pande, representing Khan, argued that his client was arrested solely based on the costume description provided in the complaint and was not identified in CCTV footage. He asserted that Sections 394 and 398 of the IPC were not applicable and that Khan was falsely implicated. He also emphasized that the charge sheet, filed on March 19, 2024, did not establish Khan’s knowledge of the alleged crime, thereby negating the applicability of Section 120(B) of the IPC. He further argued that the charge sheet relied heavily on the confession statement of co-accused Asif, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and that there were no eyewitness statements implicating Khan. He also noted that the prosecution relied on CDR records that were not filed.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ranjana Budhwant argued that the victim sustained grievous injuries requiring ICU admission and surgery. She stated that co-accused Irshad Ahsanullah Khan was arrested at the scene and that Khan’s name was disclosed by co-accused Asif. She also alleged that co-accused Harimohan, who knew the victim’s business, provided information to the assailants. She emphasized the recovery of a knife based on Asif’s disclosure and argued that Khan played an active role, attracting Section 120(B) of the IPC. She also mentioned that another accused was yet to be arrested and that an identification parade for Irshad was pending.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Tribhuwan noted the applicability of Sections 394 and 398 of the IPC, given the nature of the alleged offenses. However, he also recognized that the primary evidence against Khan was the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. He also noted the CDR records were not provided.
The court observed that Khan had been in custody since December 25, 2023, and that there was no prima facie evidence linking him to the crime. The court also noted that co-accused Harimohan Samanta was released on bail. Considering these factors, the court granted bail to Khan.
Bail Conditions:
Khan was granted bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount. The following conditions were imposed:
- Khan must not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
- He must cooperate with the investigation and be available for interrogation when required.
- He must report to the concerned police station every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for three months.
- He must not misuse his liberty.
- He must provide his detailed address and mobile number to the investigating officer and the court, and notify any changes.
- Bail to be furnished before the learned trial court.
Order Details:
The order was dictated, checked, and signed on April 6, 2024, and uploaded on April 8, 2024, at 5:38 p.m.
This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the admissibility of evidence, the length of custody, the principle of parity, and the imposition of conditions to ensure Khan’s compliance with the legal process.