Mumbai, August 8, 2022 – Mohd. Amjad Zahir Ansari, a 23-year-old labourer, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court in Mumbai in connection with an alleged assault case. Ansari was arrested in connection with Crime No. 629/2022, registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, for offenses under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 37 (1) (a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The Allegations

According to the First Information Report (FIR), Ansari and the complainant were friends. A few days before the incident, Ansari had a quarrel with some other people, and the complainant did not take his side. On June 5, 2022, at around 8:30 p.m., Ansari went to the complainant’s house, called him outside, and started abusing him for not helping during the quarrel. Ansari then allegedly assaulted the complainant with his hands and kicks, and subsequently used a knife to inflict severe injuries on the complainant’s chest, back, arms, and left knee. The complainant sustained bleeding injuries and fell to the ground. Ansari fled the scene when people gathered after hearing the complainant’s cries.

Ansari’s Defense and Arguments

Mr. Sandesh More, representing Ansari, argued that his client had been falsely implicated. He emphasized that Ansari was a permanent resident of Mumbai with deep roots in the society and was the sole earning member of his family.

Ansari’s defense also included an alternate version of events, claiming that the complainant was a drug addict who demanded money from Ansari. When Ansari refused, the complainant allegedly inflicted injuries on himself with a knife and then fled with Ansari’s bag.

Prosecution’s Objections

Mr. Ramesh Siroya, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that the complainant had sustained grievous injuries. He expressed concerns that Ansari, residing in the same locality, might pressurize the complainant and cause further harm. The prosecution also feared that Ansari might flee from justice.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Additional Sessions Judge M.S. Kulkarni considered the submissions from both sides and the documents on record. The court noted that the investigation was almost complete, with the knife recovered and witness statements recorded. The court also observed that the prosecution had not provided medical documents to substantiate the extent of the complainant’s injuries.

“From the report it appears that investigation is almost over. Recovery of knife is done. Statements of the witnesses are recorded. Other panchanamas are also conducted. When investigation is over it is not proper to keep applicant/accused behind the bar for further period. The prosecution has not put on record medical documents showing that the first informant has been suffering from the injuries sustained in the crime. In short the first informant has been discharged from the hospital and he is carrying his day to day work. Against that the applicant/accused who is the source of his family is behind bar for near about 2 months,” Judge Kulkarni stated in the order.

The court acknowledged the prosecution’s concerns but decided that they could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions on Ansari.

Bail Conditions

Ansari was granted bail on a personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 30,000 each. The court imposed the following conditions:

• A provisional cash security of Rs. 30,000 is allowed for two months, within which Ansari must furnish surety.
• Ansari must not flee from justice.
• He must not tamper with evidence and must cooperate with the investigation.
• He must attend Shivaji Nagar Police Station every Thursday between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. until the charge sheet is filed.
• The bail process will be completed before the trial court.

Key Points

• Investigation Progress: The court considered that the investigation was almost complete.
• Lack of Medical Evidence: The court noted the absence of medical documents to substantiate the extent of injuries.
• Family Support: The court considered Ansari’s role as the sole earning member of his family.
• Stringent Conditions: The court imposed stringent conditions to address the prosecution’s concerns.
• Rival Versions: The court acknowledged the conflicting versions of the incident presented by both parties.