Mumbai, Maharashtra – February 7, 2024 – Ashraf Iqbal Shaikh, a 33-year-old employee of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with an assault case registered at Bandra Railway Police Station. Shaikh was arrested and charged under sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and¹ 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).²

Background of the Case:

The case stems from an incident on February 2, 2024, at approximately 9:00 PM at Bandra Railway Station. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the complainant, a railway officer, was on duty in a general railway coach on Platform No. 1. During his duty, he attempted to wake up Shaikh, who was sleeping in the coach. It is alleged that Shaikh responded by slapping the officer on his left cheek.

Arguments Presented:

Shaikh, through his advocates Shri Prasad Rao and Shri Atul Pandey, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They argued that the investigation was practically completed, and Shaikh’s physical presence was no longer required. They also emphasized that Shaikh is a BMC employee and a local resident, ensuring his availability for the trial.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Iqbal Solkar, opposed the bail application. They argued that Shaikh had obstructed a public servant in his duty and assaulted him, which are serious offenses. They also expressed concerns that Shaikh, who they claimed did not have a permanent address in Mumbai, might hamper the investigation, pressurize witnesses, or abscond if released on bail.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge V.M. Sundale, after reviewing the FIR and hearing arguments from both sides, granted bail to Shaikh. The court noted that Shaikh’s name and role were specifically mentioned in the FIR. However, the court also observed that the investigation was nearly complete and Shaikh’s presence was not required for any further recovery or discovery.

The court highlighted that Shaikh is a BMC employee and a local resident, making it easy to secure his attendance. The judge also pointed out that the Metropolitan Magistrate had rejected Shaikh’s earlier bail application solely on the grounds that the offenses were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The court noted that while Section 353 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment up to five years, there were no extraordinary circumstances to justify keeping Shaikh in custody for an indefinite period.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Ashraf Iqbal Shaikh on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• Contact Information: He and his surety must provide their mobile numbers, email addresses, and documents pertaining to their place of residence.
• No Influence on Witnesses: He must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or pressurize any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• Travel Restrictions: He cannot leave India without prior permission of the court.
• Police Station Attendance: He must attend Bandra Railway Police Station once a week, every Saturday between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM, until the filing of the charge sheet and cooperate with the investigating agency.
• Provisional Cash Bail: Provisional cash bail of the same amount is allowed, and he must furnish surety within four weeks, failing which the cash bail will be forfeited.
• Bail Cancellation: Breach of any conditions will result in the cancellation of bail.
• Bail Execution: Bail to be executed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the stage of the investigation, the accused’s background, and the need to balance individual liberty with the interests of justice. By imposing specific conditions, the court aimed to ensure Shaikh’s cooperation with the investigation and his presence during the trial, while also acknowledging that continued detention was not warranted in this case.