Mumbai, February 3, 2024: In a recent development, the Sessions Court of Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Shri S.N. Patil (C.R. 17), granted bail to 20-year-old student Arbaz Kudarat Shaikh, who was arrested in connection with an assault case. The bail application, registered as Criminal Bail Application No. 08 of 2024, was heard on February 2, 2024, at the Sessions Court in Mumbai.
Case Background
According to the prosecution, the case stemmed from an incident on November 22, 2023, near Saibaba Mandir, R.C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai, where the informant, Somnath Mohan Jha, was allegedly assaulted by a group of individuals, including the accused, Arbaz Kudarat Shaikh. The informant claimed that Shaikh and his associates physically attacked him using fists and kicks, causing injuries.
Following the complaint, the Chembur Police registered an FIR under Crime No. 688 of 2023, booking the accused under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, and 149, which pertain to unlawful assembly and rioting.
Arguments Presented in Court
Defense’s Stand
Representing the accused, Advocate K.R. Choube argued that Shaikh had been falsely implicated in the case due to prior enmity between the accused and the informant. The defense also pointed out a delay in filing the FIR and emphasized that Shaikh did not use any weapon during the altercation. Furthermore, it was noted that the informant had already been discharged from the hospital, indicating that the injuries were not severe.
The defense also submitted that Shaikh, a student, had been in judicial custody since December 9, 2023, and pleaded for his release on bail, ensuring that he would cooperate with the investigation and adhere to the conditions imposed by the court.
Prosecution’s Objection
Opposing the bail plea, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mrs. Ashwini Raykar contended that the accused had committed a serious offense and that his release on bail could result in the possibility of him committing a similar offense in the future. The prosecution stressed the severity of the charges, particularly Section 307 of the IPC, which pertains to an attempt to murder.
Court’s Ruling
After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge S.N. Patil observed that:
- The accused had not used any weapons in the alleged attack.
- The informant had been discharged from the hospital.
- The accused was a student and had already spent a considerable period in custody.
- The case circumstances did not warrant prolonged detention at this stage.
Taking these factors into account, the court decided to grant bail to the accused under the following conditions:
- Shaikh was required to furnish a Personal Bond (PB) of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount.
- He was strictly prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise to any witnesses or individuals connected to the case.
- The accused was ordered not to commit a similar offense while out on bail.
- He was barred from leaving India without prior court permission.
- A provisional cash bail of Rs. 25,000 was granted for a period of four weeks from the date of the order.
- The bail order was subject to approval by the Magistrate.
Legal Implications and Conclusion
The decision to grant bail in a case involving charges as serious as attempt to murder highlights the court’s balanced approach in assessing the severity of the crime against the accused’s individual circumstances. By imposing strict conditions, the court ensured that the accused remained available for further legal proceedings while also safeguarding his rights as a student and first-time offender.
This ruling reiterates the principle that bail should not be denied as a means of punishment, especially when the circumstances suggest that the accused may not pose a threat to the legal process or public safety. The case will now proceed as per due process, with further investigations and trial to determine the final outcome.
The judgment was pronounced on February 2, 2024, and the order was uploaded on February 3, 2024, at 4:30 p.m.
