Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 25, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of Imran Firoz Sayyad, accused of threatening police personnel with a sickle and violating an externment order. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge R.J. Katariya, denied bail citing the accused’s criminal antecedents and the severity of the alleged offenses.
Imran Firoz Sayyad (28) was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 443 of 2021, registered at Mahim Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 504 (intentional insult with1 intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code2 (IPC), section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, and sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act.
Details of the Allegations:
According to the prosecution, on August 31, 2021, at 12:15 AM, Police Constable Arun Ankush Pawar and other police staff were patrolling in the Mahim Killa Compound. Upon seeing the police, Sayyad allegedly went into his house, brought out a sickle, and threatened to kill them. The police apprehended him, seized the sickle, and discovered that he had violated an externment order issued on July 2, 2021, for a period of two years.
Arguments Presented During the Bail Hearing:
Sayyad’s advocate, Mr. Anish Desai, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had no involvement in the alleged offenses. He emphasized that Sayyad was arrested on the day the FIR was registered, the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed.
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Ms. Ashwini Rayakar, opposed the bail application, citing the seizure of the sickle and Sayyad’s extensive criminal record, including an offense under section 302 (murder) of the IPC. They argued that there was a high possibility of Sayyad committing similar offenses if released on bail.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Katariya, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, noted the severity of the allegations against Sayyad.
“Considering the matter, applicant having seen the informant and other police persons went inside the house and brought sickle and threatened them to kill. It is alleged that the applicant also abused them. There is externment order against the applicant for the period of two years which had been contravened by the applicant,” Judge Katariya stated in the order.
The court also highlighted Sayyad’s criminal antecedents and the risk of him committing similar offenses.
“The applicant has number of criminal antecedents including one for offence u/s 302 of IPC. There is possibility of commission of similar offence. There is ample material against the applicant. The iron sickle used by the applicant in the crime is seized from him,” Judge Katariya noted.
The court concluded that, given the specific allegations and Sayyad’s criminal history, he was not entitled to bail.
“In view of specific allegations against the applicant regarding said crime, he is not entitled for grant of bail,” Judge Katariya stated.
Decision:
The court rejected Sayyad’s bail application, emphasizing the severity of the alleged offenses, the violation of the externment order, and Sayyad’s criminal antecedents.
Implications of the Decision:
This decision underscores the court’s stringent approach in cases involving threats to public servants and violations of legal orders, especially when the accused has a history of criminal activity. It highlights the court’s emphasis on maintaining law and order and ensuring the safety of public servants.