Mumbai, March 18, 2024: Zaeem Javed Shaikh @ Parvez, accused in an attempted murder and rioting case, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. The order, issued by Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar, comes in response to Criminal Bail Application No. 630 of 2024, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Shaikh was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 90/2024, registered at Deonar Police Station, for offences under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 143 (unlawful assembly), 144 (joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon),¹ and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the² Indian Penal Code, Sections 37(1)(A) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, and Sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

The Allegations and Prosecution’s Stance:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor O.S. Maraskolhe, opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offence and the ongoing investigation. They argued that Shaikh, along with other accused, formed an unlawful assembly and committed a serious offence. They expressed concerns that granting bail would lead to witness tampering and evidence destruction.

According to the FIR, on March 3, 2024, at around 6:00 PM, at A Block, Deonar Colony Garden, Govandi, Mumbai, accused Tausif assaulted witness Yasim on the head and neck with a sword. Shaikh, along with other accused, allegedly assaulted the complainant and his brother Yasim with bats, stumps, and swords, attempting to kill them.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations:

Advocate S.K. Ali, representing Shaikh, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that there was no evidence linking him directly or indirectly to the offence. He stated that his client would abide by all conditions imposed by the court.

Judge Salgar, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, noted several crucial points:

• Specific Allegations in FIR: The FIR specifically mentioned Shaikh as accused No. 2 and alleged that he, along with accused Tabrez, assaulted the complainant with bats and stumps and abused him.
• Recovery of Weapon: The investigating officer reported that Shaikh’s memorandum statement was recorded and a bat was recovered from him.
• Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was still in progress.
• Seriousness of Offence: The alleged offence was serious, involving an attempt to murder and rioting with deadly weapons.
• Criminal Antecedents: The investigating officer reported that two other crimes were registered against Shaikh at Deonar Police Station and Sion Police Station.

Judge Salgar concluded that considering the specific allegations in the FIR, the recovery of a weapon, the ongoing investigation, the seriousness of the offence, and Shaikh’s criminal antecedents, it was not proper to grant him bail.

Denial of Bail:

The court denied bail to Zaeem Javed Shaikh @ Parvez, stating that the alleged offence was serious, the investigation was not complete, and there was a possibility of witness tampering and evidence destruction. The court also noted that granting bail could lead to Shaikh committing similar offences.

Implications and Future Proceedings:

The denial of bail highlights the court’s consideration of the seriousness of the offence, the specific allegations in the FIR, the ongoing investigation, and the accused’s criminal antecedents. While the trial will proceed, and the prosecution will have the opportunity to present its evidence, the court’s decision underscores the balance between the presumption of innocence and the need to ensure the integrity of the legal process.