Mumbai, February 3, 2022 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Saifali Shaukatali Ansari, accused in an attempt to murder case. Additional Judge G.B. Gurao, presiding over Court Room No. 17, allowed Ansari’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 81 of 2022), citing his limited role in the alleged offense and the absence of any recovery from him.

Ansari was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 370/2020, registered at Deonar Police Station, for offenses under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace),¹ 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian² Penal Code (IPC), along with sections³ 4 and 25 of the Arms Act and section 37(1)(A) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the FIR, the complainant, Salauddin Khan, alleged that he and Jeet Kadam opened a new washing center. On January 4, 2020, during Kadam’s birthday, the accused demanded a party from the complainant. Upon refusal, they allegedly assaulted him. A separate FIR (C.R. No. 351/2020) was registered for this incident.

Subsequently, on November 15, 2020, the accused allegedly attacked the complainant again near Lotus Signal. Co-accused Shakir allegedly attempted to assault the complainant with a sword, causing injuries to his hand and head. Co-accused Shakir and Imran allegedly assaulted him with bamboo sticks, while Ansari allegedly assaulted him with kicks and blows.

Defense Arguments:

Ansari, through his advocate S.K. Ali, argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. He highlighted that there was no recovery or discovery at his instance. He also pointed out that his role, as per the FIR, was limited to assaulting the complainant with kicks and blows. He further stated that he was a permanent resident of his given address and was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Ramesh Siroya, opposed the bail application. They argued that the investigation was ongoing, that Ansari had been absconding for about a year, and that he might not turn up for the trial if released on bail.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Gurao, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Limited Role: The court noted that Ansari’s role, as per the FIR, was limited to assaulting the complainant with kicks and blows.
• No Recovery: The court acknowledged that there was no recovery from Ansari.
• Permanent Resident: The court considered that Ansari was a permanent resident of his given address.
• Undertaking to Abide by Conditions: The court noted Ansari’s undertaking to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Judge Gurao concluded that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Ansari was entitled to bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Ansari bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹20,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must attend the concerned police station as and when required by the investigating officer.
• He must not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
• He must not commit any offense while on bail.
• He must furnish his correct address to the investigating officer.
• He is granted provisional cash bail of ₹20,000 for four weeks.
• Bail must be furnished before the Learned Magistrate.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s consideration of:

• Limited Role of the Accused: The court considered the specific role attributed to the accused in the FIR.
• Absence of Recovery: The court noted the absence of any recovery from the accused.
• Permanent Residency: The court considered the accused’s permanent residency as a factor in granting bail.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice, particularly when the accused’s role is limited and there is no strong evidence implicating them.