Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 15, 2024 – Mohammad Ayyub Yaar Mohammad Khan, a 26-year-old resident of Ghatkopar, Mumbai, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with an assault and threat case.

Background of the Case:

Khan was arrested and charged under sections 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)¹ of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, in connection with C.R. No. 84/2024.

The prosecution alleged that on February 3, 2024, Khan demanded Rs. 100 from the complainant to buy meat. When the complainant refused, Khan allegedly pushed him. Khan’s mother intervened. Subsequently, Khan allegedly returned with two swords, threatened to kill the complainant and his relatives, and inflicted sword blows on the complainant’s neck and thumb, causing serious injury.

Arguments Presented:

Khan, through his advocates Raj Paradikar and Shankar Ambhure, argued that he was falsely implicated in the case. He claimed that the complainant suffered only simple injuries and that he did not use any weapons. He pointed out that he was arrested immediately after the incident on February 3, 2024, and that the investigation was now complete, with the charge sheet filed.

The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs) S.V. Kekanis and Manisha J. Parmar, strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that Khan was a habitual offender, posed a threat to witnesses and evidence, and had created terror in the neighborhood.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire granted bail to Khan. The court noted that:

• Completed Investigation: The investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed.
• Lack of Prior Convictions: Despite the prosecution’s claim of Khan being a habitual offender, no evidence was presented to support this claim.
• Witnesses and Evidence: The court acknowledged that there were 10 witnesses and some documentary evidence.
• Trial Court Rejection: The trial court had rejected bail based on the possibility of evidence tampering and the severity of the complainant’s injuries.
• Stringent Conditions: The court concluded that imposing stringent conditions would adequately address the prosecution’s concerns.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Mohammad Ayyub Yaar Mohammad Khan on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and furnish one solvent surety of the same amount.
• No Tampering with Witnesses or Evidence: He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• Court Attendance: He must attend every court hearing.
• No Criminal Activity: He must not engage in any criminal activity.
• No Leaving India: He must not leave India without prior permission from the trial court.
• Address and Contact Information: He must provide his residential address proof and contact numbers to the police.
• Surety Compliance: He must complete surety compliance before the trial court.
• Information to Trial Court and Police: A copy of the order must be sent to the trial court and the Ghatkopar Police Station.
• Police Notice: The Ghatkopar Police Station must take note of the order.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the completion of the investigation and the lack of prior convictions when determining bail applications. The court’s decision to grant bail, despite the serious nature of the charges, reflects its assessment that further detention was unnecessary, given the progress of the case and the imposition of conditions to ensure Khan’s presence during the trial and to prevent him from interfering with the investigation. The court also showed that simple claims of habitual offending are not enough, and that evidence must be provided.