Mumbai, February 14, 2024 — The Additional Sessions Judge of the Greater Mumbai Sessions Court, Shri A.S. Salgar (C.R. No. 24), granted regular bail to Aslam Rafiq Shaikh, accused in a case involving charges of assault and grievous hurt under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bail application, Criminal Bail Application No. 12 of 2024, was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Shaikh, a resident of Vashi Naka, Chembur, Mumbai, was accused in connection with C.R. No. 657/2023, registered at the RCF Police Station. The charges included serious offenses under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 324, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to the night of November 7, 2023, when a quarrel broke out at New RNA Park in Chembur. According to the First Information Report (FIR), Mukesh Jadhav, the complainant, alleged that his brother Manoj and Manoj’s partner were engaged in a heated argument. During this altercation, three individuals, including Shaikh, allegedly intervened and assaulted Manoj.
When Mukesh and his wife Neelam attempted to diffuse the situation, the accused Aman Noor Mohd. Shaikh reportedly struck Mukesh with a belt, while Aslam Shaikh allegedly attacked him with a bamboo stick, causing grievous injuries. Neelam was also allegedly assaulted by Aman, sustaining injuries to her left hand.
The RCF Police subsequently registered a case and arrested Shaikh on November 11, 2023. Shaikh has been in judicial custody since his arrest.
Key Arguments by the Defense and Prosecution
Defense’s Stand
Appearing for Shaikh, advocate Mr. Imran Shaikh argued that the accused was falsely implicated in the case. He emphasized:
- Contradictions in Evidence: While the FIR alleged a head injury caused by Shaikh’s bamboo stick, the medical report of the complainant did not corroborate the claim, as it did not indicate any head injuries.
- Co-accused’s Bail: The co-accused in the case had already been granted bail, establishing grounds for parity.
- Non-Recovery of Weapon: No weapon was recovered at Shaikh’s instance, and only his clothes had been seized during the investigation.
- Compliance Assurance: Shaikh expressed his willingness to abide by all conditions imposed by the court, arguing that no purpose would be served by his continued detention.
Prosecution’s Stand
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. O.S. Maraskolhe, opposed the bail application on the grounds that Shaikh’s release might result in tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. The prosecution also raised concerns about Shaikh’s potential non-appearance in court.
Court’s Observations and Findings
In a detailed oral order delivered on February 12, 2024, Judge Salgar critically analyzed the evidence and arguments:
- Contradictions in Medical Evidence: The judge noted discrepancies between the FIR and the medical certificate of the complainant, which did not indicate any head injuries. This inconsistency undermined the prosecution’s case against Shaikh.
- Nature of Injuries: The complainant had been discharged from the hospital and was out of danger, reducing the gravity of the alleged offense.
- Completion of Investigation: With the investigation concluded and the charge sheet filed, the court deemed further detention unnecessary.
- Parity Principle: As the co-accused had already been granted bail, Shaikh was entitled to the same relief.
The court emphasized that Shaikh had been in custody since November 11, 2023, and the trial proceedings were likely to take considerable time to commence. Hence, denying bail would serve no purpose.
Bail Conditions Imposed
The court granted bail to Shaikh on the following conditions:
- Furnishing a personal bond of ₹40,000, with one or more sureties of the same amount.
- Mandatory court attendance on all hearing dates.
- Prohibition from entering the vicinity of the informant’s residence.
- Disclosure of residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email IDs to the investigating officer, with updates on any changes.
- No direct or indirect inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses or tampering with evidence.
- Prohibition from leaving India without prior court permission.
A provisional cash bail of ₹40,000 was allowed for a period of four weeks to enable Shaikh to furnish sureties.
Implications and Conclusion
The case highlights the judicial scrutiny applied in bail applications, particularly when inconsistencies arise in evidence. The order serves as a reminder of the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in cases where investigation is complete, and co-accused have been granted bail.
Aslam Rafiq Shaikh’s release on bail marks a critical moment in the ongoing legal proceedings, with the trial expected to shed further light on the allegations and evidence.
