Mumbai, January 10, 2024 – The City Civil & Sessions Court in Mumbai granted bail to Afsar Hussen Ahemad, an accused in a criminal case registered under C.R. No. 184/2023 at RAK Marg Police Station. The bail application, numbered 14/2024, was heard by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar, who issued the order on January 9, 2024.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on June 1, 2023, in Wadala, Mumbai. The informant, whose name has been withheld, was reportedly attacked outside his garment shop by three unknown assailants on a red Pulsar motorcycle. The attackers had their faces covered, and one of them stabbed the informant on the right cheek with a knife. As the informant fell and screamed, his brother attempted to intervene, but the assailant’s knife allegedly got stuck in the bike handle, prompting the perpetrators to flee the scene.
The informant was later hospitalized, and an FIR was lodged under Sections 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
Arrest and Investigation
Following an investigation, authorities arrested co-accused Sarwar Maqsood Khan, who allegedly named Afsar Hussen Ahemad and another individual, Farooq Farid Shaikh, as accomplices in the attack. Consequently, Ahemad was taken into custody on December 1, 2023.
During the bail hearing, Ahemad’s defense counsel, Advocate Sushil Pande, argued that his client had been falsely implicated based on co-accused Khan’s statement. Pande contended that Ahemad was not present at the crime scene and that the informant was attacked by unknown individuals. Furthermore, he pointed out that the firearm and ammunition allegedly recovered were linked to Khan, not Ahemad. The defense also emphasized that Ahemad had cooperated fully with the investigation and had no direct connection to the alleged crime.
Prosecution’s Opposition
Opposing the bail plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Abhijeet Gondwal asserted that Ahemad was actively involved in the crime. The prosecution argued that the accused posed a threat to the community and could tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if released. Additionally, they raised concerns over his alleged criminal background and potential to abscond.
Court’s Ruling
After considering the arguments, Judge Joglekar observed that while Section 34 (common intention) had been invoked, there was insufficient material directly linking Ahemad to the crime scene. Notably, the injuries sustained by the victim were categorized as “simple” in nature. Furthermore, the weapons in question had been seized from co-accused Khan, and Ahemad’s arrest was primarily based on Khan’s statement.
In light of these factors, the court concluded that prolonged incarceration of the accused was unwarranted and granted him bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court imposed the following conditions:
- Ahemad must furnish a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
- He and his sureties must provide their residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses, with any changes to be reported immediately.
- He must not threaten or influence any witnesses in the case.
- He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
- He is required to appear at RAK Marg Police Station every Tuesday and Friday between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until further notice.
- He must surrender his passport (if any) to the investigating officer or submit an affidavit stating he does not possess one.
- He is prohibited from leaving India without prior court approval.
- Any violation of these conditions will result in immediate cancellation of bail.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
The case continues to be under investigation, with the prosecution likely to challenge the bail order if new evidence emerges. Legal experts suggest that the court’s emphasis on the lack of direct evidence and the nature of the injuries played a crucial role in granting bail.
The verdict underscores the judiciary’s approach of balancing individual rights with the interests of justice, ensuring that an accused is not unduly detained without substantial evidence. Meanwhile, the victim and law enforcement agencies await further developments as they pursue the case against all accused parties.
(This report is based on court documents and statements from legal representatives. Further updates will follow as the case progresses.)
