Mumbai, June 14, 2022 – In a significant ruling, the Additional Sessions Judge Vishal S. Gaike granted bail to Mohammad Ishaq Suleman Shaikh, accused in an attempted murder case registered at Shahu Nagar police station. The decision, delivered on June 9, 2022, hinged on the court’s assessment of the FIR, which lacked specific mention of Shaikh’s name, and raised doubts regarding the application of Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Shaikh, a resident of Dharavi, Mumbai, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 91 of 2022, which involved charges under various sections of the IPC, including attempted murder, voluntarily causing hurt, rioting, and unlawful assembly, as well as sections of the Maharashtra Police Act and the Indian Arms Act.

The prosecution’s case stemmed from a complaint filed by Peter Ponraj, who alleged that on April 6, 2022, he and his friends were attacked by a group of individuals, including Adhistharaja, Anil Shelte, Bhupati Nadar, Kartik, Selva, and Sultan. During the altercation, one of Ponraj’s friends, Isai Balan, sustained grievous injuries, including a head injury inflicted with a sickle. Initially, the FIR did not mention Shaikh’s name, instead referring to “Sultan” as one of the assailants.

The Investigating Officer (IO) later invoked Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and sections of the Arms Act after determining that Balan had sustained grievous injuries. Subsequently, based on an additional statement by Ponraj, recorded three days after the incident, Section 307 of the IPC was also invoked, alleging a conspiracy to kill Ponraj and his friends.

Shaikh, through his advocate Ms. Sangeeta B. Suchdev, sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), arguing that he was falsely implicated and that his name was not mentioned in the original FIR. He contended that he was not known as “Sultan” and that the ingredients of Section 307 were not met, as there was no prima facie evidence of an intention to kill. He also highlighted that the investigation was nearly complete and that he was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) J. N. Suryawanshi, vehemently opposed the bail application, citing the ongoing investigation, Shaikh’s alleged habitual offender status, and the potential threat he posed to the complainant and witnesses.

The complainant, Peter Ponraj, also appeared through his advocate Mr. Asif Latif Shaikh and opposed the bail, filing an intervention application which was allowed by the court.

After considering the arguments and reviewing the records, Judge Gaike observed that Shaikh’s name was indeed absent from the initial FIR and that “Sultan” was mentioned instead. The court noted that Shaikh’s contention that he was not Sultan was a matter for the prosecution to prove during the trial.

The court also examined the medical evidence, noting that while Isai Balan sustained a grievous head injury, the other injuries were simple. The court pointed out that the sickle injury was attributed to Adhistharaja, not Shaikh, and that the incident appeared to be a sudden fight between two groups.

“The M.L.C. paper of the victim reflects that he has sustained one grievous injury on his left parietal region and rest of the eight injuries are simple in nature. The contents of the F.I.R. reflects that there was sudden fight between two groups in which the victim may have sustained the alleged injuries. The sickle injury is not attributed to the applicant and is attributed to main accused Adhistharaja. From the contents of F.I.R., prima facie, ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. The police have invoked Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of additional statement of the informant recorded 3 days after the incident,” Judge Gaike stated in his order.

The court also noted that the substantial investigation was complete, the victim had been discharged from the hospital, and the prosecution had not provided details of Shaikh’s alleged criminal antecedents.

“The contents of case diary reflects that substantial investigation has been completed. Admittedly, the victim is discharged from the Hospital in the month of April itself. The criminal antecedents of the applicant are alleged by the investigating agency. But, no details of it are given in the say of the Investigating Officer,” Judge Gaike observed.

Finding no prima facie possibility that Shaikh would flee or commit similar offenses, the court granted bail, imposing stringent conditions to address the prosecution’s concerns. Shaikh was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of the same amount. He was also directed not to tamper with witnesses or evidence, to provide his detailed address and contact information, to inform the court of any change in residence or contact details, to attend court regularly, and not to leave the court’s jurisdiction without permission. He was also prohibited from threatening or pressurizing the complainant and witnesses.

The order, digitally signed on June 14, 2022, was uploaded at 12:10 PM on the same day, as certified by stenographer Bahushruta Y. Jambhale.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on the importance of specific allegations in FIRs and the need for careful consideration of the evidence before invoking serious charges like attempted murder. It also highlights the court’s role in balancing individual liberty with the imperatives of law enforcement.