Mumbai, Maharashtra – March 12, 2024 – Ten individuals arrested in connection with a violent protest outside the Ghatkopar Police Station in Mumbai have been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. The incident, which occurred on February 4, 2024, involved a large mob demanding the release of religious scholar Mufti Azhari, who was detained by the police.

The court issued a common order for three separate bail applications (BA 515/2024, BA 526/2024, and BA 527/2024), granting bail to the following individuals:

• BA 515/2024:
  • Azharuddin Nasiruddin Shaikh (36, Business)
  • Arif Adam Khatri (39, Interior Designer)
• BA 526/2024:
  • Mohammed Hashim Salim Shaikh (28, Rickshaw Driver)
  • Ahmed Kallu Khan (33, Social Worker)
  • Aslam Wasim Khan (32, R/o. Room No. 103, Ghatkopar Industrial Estate, Amrut Nagar Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086)
• BA 527/2024:
  • Mohammad Suheel Shaukat Ali Ansari (29, Gents Tailor)
  • Hakeekullah Atiullah Ansari (34, Gents Tailor)

Background of the Case:

The incident began when the Gujarat State ATS Squad, with assistance from the Ghatkopar Police, took Mufti Azhari into custody. Subsequently, a large crowd of approximately 1,000 followers gathered outside the police station, demanding his immediate release. When their demands were not met, the mob allegedly turned violent, pelting stones at the police and the police station premises. The incident resulted in injuries to 20 police personnel and officials.

The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt¹ to deter public servant from his duty), 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 341² (wrongful restraint), 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others),³ 141 (unlawful assembly), 143 (unlawful assembly), 145 (joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing that it has been commanded to disperse), 147 (rioting), and 149 (unlawful assembly). They were also charged under section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amended) Act, 1932, and sections 37(1), 37(3), and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

Arguments Presented:

The prosecution argued that the accused were actively involved in the violent protest, which was recorded on video. They emphasized the severity of the offense, citing the injuries to police personnel and the attempt to intimidate law enforcement.

The defense argued that several co-accused had already been granted bail and that the allegations against the present applicants were similar and general in nature. They also pointed to the limited number of stones and other items seized during the spot panchanama, suggesting that the police response was disproportionate. They argued that there was no specific evidence against these accused.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire granted bail to the applicants, noting that while the incident was serious, the allegations against the applicants were similar in nature, and the investigation had progressed significantly. The court also considered the availability of video evidence and the fact that several co-accused had already been granted bail.

The court stated that while the attack on public servants is a serious matter, further custodial detention was not necessary for the investigation. The court decided to grant bail with stringent conditions.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to each of the ten applicants upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and furnishing one or two solvent sureties of the same amount. The following conditions were imposed:

• No tampering with witnesses or evidence.
• Weekly attendance at the Ghatkopar Police Station until the filing of the charge sheet.
• Attendance at all trial dates.
• No involvement in criminal activity.
• No leaving India without prior court permission.
• Submission of residential address proof and contact details to the police.
• Compliance with surety requirements before the trial court.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision reflects the court’s balancing of the severity of the offense with the individual rights of the accused. By imposing strict conditions, the court aimed to ensure the accused’s cooperation with the investigation and their presence during the trial, while also acknowledging that continued detention was not warranted in this case. This case also shows the courts consideration of parity between the accused, when some accused are granted bail, and others are in the same case.