Mumbai, January 18, 2024 – In a significant legal development, the Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Shahrukh Azmtullah Pathan (24), an accused in an attempted murder case. The bail application (No. 113/2024) was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in connection with Crime No. 8/2024, registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station. The case involves charges under Sections 307, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The order was pronounced by Additional Sessions Judge A.A. Kulkarni (C.R. No. 22), who ruled that Pathan could be released on bail, provided he fulfills certain conditions.

Case Background and Allegations

According to the First Information Report (FIR), the incident occurred on January 2, 2024. The informant was at his residence when an argument erupted between him and the accused. Pathan, along with co-accused Sameer, was present at the house of the informant’s brother-in-law when a verbal exchange escalated into a violent confrontation.

The prosecution alleged that:

• Pathan restrained the informant, holding him forcefully.
• Co-accused Sameer attacked the informant with a beer bottle, causing injuries.
• The attack was carried out with the intent to commit murder, justifying the charge under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder).

Following the incident, Pathan was arrested on January 5, 2024, and was placed in police custody.

Defense’s Arguments for Bail

Representing the accused, Advocate Nawaz Usmani argued that:

• Pathan had a limited role in the incident and did not physically assault the informant.
• The primary assailant was co-accused Sameer, who used the beer bottle as a weapon.
• Pathan merely restrained the informant and did not act with the intention to cause grievous harm.
• The investigation had progressed significantly, and there was no need for further detention.
• Pathan had fully cooperated with the police, and no further recoveries were pending.
• He was a permanent resident of Mumbai and would not abscond.

Prosecution’s Opposition to Bail

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) J.N. Surywanshi, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that:

1. The offense was serious, as it involved an attempt to murder.
2. The investigation was still ongoing, and Pathan’s release could hamper evidence collection.
3. There was a risk that Pathan might intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.
4. Pathan and the co-accused resided in the same locality as the informant, increasing the likelihood of potential threats or reprisals.

Court’s Observations and Decision

After hearing both parties, Judge A.A. Kulkarni noted the following key points:

1. Pathan’s role was limited to restraining the informant, while the actual assault was carried out by co-accused Sameer.
2. There was no evidence that Pathan had inflicted any physical injuries on the informant.
3. The police had sufficient time for interrogation, and further detention was unnecessary.
4. Pathan had no prior criminal record, and the court found no extraordinary circumstances to justify continued incarceration.

Given these factors, the judge ruled that Pathan was eligible for bail with specific conditions to ensure his cooperation with the investigation.

Bail Conditions Imposed by the Court

1. Pathan was granted bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹25,000, along with one or more sureties of the same amount.
2. He must appear before the police whenever required for further investigation until the charge sheet is filed.
3. Pathan must provide proof of residence and contact details to the Investigating Officer (IO).
4. He is strictly prohibited from contacting or threatening any prosecution witnesses.
5. He cannot leave India without prior court permission.
6. A provisional cash surety was allowed for 10 weeks.
7. Bail must be executed before the lower court (Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court).

Legal and Social Implications

This case highlights the importance of assessing individual roles in group offenses. The court’s decision to grant bail reflects its view that mere presence at the crime scene does not automatically warrant continued detention, particularly when the primary act of violence was committed by another person.

However, the severity of the offense under Section 307 IPC remains a concern, and the prosecution is likely to continue its case against the accused during the trial.

With Pathan now out on bail, the focus shifts to further investigation and the pending charge sheet, which will determine whether he continues to face serious charges or is eventually acquitted.