Mumbai, February 17, 2024 – Asif Abdul Shaikh, also known as “Papa,” has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in connection with a robbery and assault case. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire rejected Shaikh’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 295 of 2024), citing his extensive criminal record and the ongoing investigation.

Shaikh was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 24 of 2024, registered at Bhandup Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 506(II) (criminal intimidation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt)¹ of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that on January 13, 2024, at approximately 12:30 AM, Shaikh had traveled in the complainant, Sureshkumar Ramji Bind’s auto-rickshaw. When Bind demanded the fare, Shaikh allegedly became angry, assaulted him with a stone, and robbed him of ₹800 from his shirt pocket. He also allegedly threatened to kill Bind.

Defense Arguments:

Shaikh’s advocate, N.V. Sawant, argued that his client was innocent and falsely implicated. He claimed that the allegations did not constitute offenses under section 397 of the IPC or any other crime. He asserted that no weapon was used in the alleged crime and that the serious charges were baseless.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs) S.V. Kekanis and Manisha J. Parmar, strongly opposed the bail. They argued that Shaikh had a history of committing similar serious crimes, with nine previous cases pending against him. They claimed that there was sufficient evidence linking him to the current crime and that he had a reputation for terrorizing the local area. They expressed concerns that he would tamper with evidence and witnesses if released. They also noted that he had absconded after the alleged crime and that certain aspects of the investigation were still ongoing.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Tapkire, after reviewing the record and hearing the arguments, noted that:

• The complainant was seriously injured, with grievous injuries.
• Shaikh had nine prior criminal cases pending against him, all of a similar serious nature.
• An eyewitness statement had been recorded.
• Certain relevant material facts and circumstances were still under investigation.

The court emphasized the seriousness of the leveled offenses, the gravity of the injuries, and the necessity for further investigation. It also highlighted Shaikh’s criminal history and the potential for him to tamper with evidence or witnesses.

Considering these factors, the court concluded that Shaikh did not deserve to be released on bail at this stage.

Key Points from the Court’s Reasoning:

• Extensive Criminal Record: The court gave significant weight to Shaikh’s prior criminal history, indicating a pattern of similar offenses.
• Seriousness of Offenses: The court emphasized the seriousness and gravity of the charges against Shaikh, including robbery with assault.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court noted that crucial aspects of the investigation were still pending, requiring further interrogation and evidence gathering.
• Potential for Tampering: The court expressed concerns that Shaikh, if released, would likely tamper with evidence and intimidate witnesses.

Conclusion:

The court rejected Shaikh’s bail application, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation and the potential risk he posed to the community and the integrity of the judicial process.