Mumbai, April 29, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge R.J. Katariya granted bail to Nadeem Naeem Ansari, a 25-year-old food delivery worker, in an assault case registered at Tardeo Police Station. The court cited the trivial reason for the altercation and the progress of the investigation as key factors in its decision.

Ansari was arrested in connection with Crime No. 76/2022, registered under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal¹ Code (IPC), and Section 184 (drunkenness in a public place) of the Maharashtra Police Act.

According to the prosecution, on March 16, 2022, at approximately 3:00 PM, Ansari, under the influence of drugs, was present near Tulsiwadi transit Camp No. 8. He allegedly snatched a burning cigarette from Humza, who was standing with the complainant, Narayan Parmar. When Parmar questioned Ansari’s actions, Ansari became angry, entered a nearby barber shop, retrieved a pair of scissors, and assaulted Parmar on the chest and stomach.

Ansari, through his advocate Mr. Sharikh M. Khan, sought bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated and that he had not committed the alleged offense. He emphasized his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ms. Ashwini Rayakar, opposed the bail application, citing Ansari’s alleged habitual offender status, an existing externment order against him, and the presence of eyewitnesses. They also expressed concerns about the possibility of Ansari committing further offenses.

Judge Katariya, after reviewing the case records, noted that Ansari and Parmar were childhood friends and that the assault appeared to have stemmed from a trivial reason. The court also considered the injury certificate, which indicated that Parmar sustained abrasions and cut marks on his chest.

“Perusal of report, there are allegations against the applicant having assaulted the informant by scissor. Initially offence under section 324 of IPC was registered against applicant. Subsequently, section 307 of IPC came to be added. The applicant and informant are childhood friends. It appears that applicant assaulted informant on trivial reason. Injury certificate dated 18.04.2022 issued by Assistant Medical officer shows that abrasion and cut mark over chest is caused to the informant. Statements of witnesses are recorded. Panchanamas are prepared. The scissor is also seized. Major part of investigation is completed. Considering the matter there would not be any prejudice to the prosecution, if suitable conditions are imposed on the applicant while granting bail to him,” Judge Katariya stated in his order.

The court also acknowledged that statements of witnesses had been recorded, panchanamas had been prepared, and the scissors used in the assault had been seized, indicating that a significant portion of the investigation was complete.

Consequently, the court granted Ansari bail, ordering him to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount. The court also imposed several conditions, including:

• Attending Tardeo Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer and cooperating with the investigation.
• Not committing any other or similar offenses.
• Furnishing documents of his permanent and temporary residential address to the Investigating Officer.
• Providing written intimation to the Investigating Officer and the Metropolitan Magistrate Court whenever he changes his residential or temporary address.
• Not directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising the complainant or any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• Not tampering with the evidence.

The court also allowed provisional cash bail for six weeks.

The order, typed, checked, and signed on April 28, 2022, was uploaded on April 29, 2022, at 2:00 PM, as certified by stenographer Aparna V. Lele.

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach in balancing the seriousness of offenses with the progress of investigations and the specific circumstances of each case. It also underscores the court’s role in imposing conditions to ensure compliance and prevent potential tampering with evidence.