Mumbai, Maharashtra – June 16, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has granted bail to Abdul Rahim @ Ravi Kumar Vanvamalai Khan, an accused in an attempted murder and robbery case registered at Dharavi Police Station. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Vishal S. Gaike, allowed the bail application after considering the circumstances of the case, including the filing of the charge sheet and the release of other co-accused.

Khan was arrested in connection with Crime No. 884 of 2021, registered under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous¹ weapons or means), 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 380² (theft in dwelling house, etc.), 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees), 143 (unlawful assembly), 144 (joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 146 (rioting), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object),³ 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 109 (abetment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as section 4 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act and section 37(1)(a) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The complainant, Kaljeet Hariprasad Varun, alleged that on October 2, 2021, several individuals, including Rizwan, Gani, Sadaf, and their accomplices, forcibly entered his office armed with swords and rods. They attacked him and his brother Amarjeet, causing grievous injuries, and stole two mobile phones. The accused also threatened those who attempted to intervene.

During the hearing, the applicant’s counsel, Mr. Santosh Pal, argued that the applicant’s name was not mentioned in the initial FIR and that he was falsely implicated later. He also pointed out that the complainant sustained only simple injuries, despite allegations of assault with swords and iron rods, and that no items were seized from the applicant. Furthermore, he highlighted that other co-accused had already been granted bail and that the charge sheet had been filed.

The prosecution, represented by Ld. A.P.P. Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, and the intervener, represented by Ld. Adv. Ms. Yogita Kanojia, opposed the bail application, citing the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the potential threat to witnesses. They argued that the applicant had committed the present offense while on interim bail in another case and that he might abscond if released.

Judge Gaike, after considering the arguments and reviewing the charge sheet, noted that the applicant’s name was absent from the FIR and that other co-accused had already been granted bail. He also acknowledged the applicant’s criminal history but emphasized that he had not been convicted in any previous cases. The court observed that the trial was likely to be prolonged and that the applicant was entitled to the presumption of innocence.

“The presumption of innocence is available to him till the conclusion of his trial. Hence, no further purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present application,” Judge Gaike stated in the order.

The court granted bail to Khan on a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to several conditions, including:

• Not tampering with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• Furnishing detailed address, mobile/contact number, address proof, and identity proof.
• Informing the court and investigating officer of any change in residence or contact details.
• Regularly attending court proceedings if a charge sheet is filed.
• Not leaving the court’s jurisdiction without permission.
• Not threatening or pressuring the complainant and witnesses.

The bail was ordered to be furnished before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, or before the Sessions Court if the case is committed to it.

This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the balance between individual liberty and the interests of justice, particularly in cases where the charge sheet has been filed and other co-accused have been released. The imposition of stringent conditions aims to ensure the applicant’s compliance and safeguard the integrity of the judicial process.