Mumbai, January 31, 2024 – The Additional Sessions Court in Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Mohd Matin Niyaj Ahmad, a 22-year-old service employee, who was arrested for allegedly attempting to kill a traffic constable by running over him with his vehicle. The accused, who had been absconding for nearly a month, was arrested on December 25, 2023, after extensive efforts by the police.

The case stems from an incident that occurred on November 28, 2023, on L.B.S. Road, where the first informant, Police Constable Laxman Madhukar Mojar, was on traffic control duty. According to the prosecution, the accused was driving a Wagon-R car and took an illegal U-turn at a divider, heading towards Ghatkopar. When Constable Mojar signaled him to stop, the accused allegedly accelerated instead, knocking down the officer and running over him. As a result, the constable suffered a fractured thigh, along with head and hand injuries.

Initially, the complaint was registered against an unidentified driver, but after an investigation, the police identified and traced Ahmad. He was arrested on December 25, 2023, nearly a month after the incident.

Defense’s Arguments

Advocate Imran Sheikh, representing the accused, argued that Ahmad was falsely implicated and was a victim of circumstances. He contended that the charges of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not applicable, as the accused had no intent to cause the constable’s death. Sheikh highlighted that Ahmad had surrendered to the police on his family’s advice and that apart from Section 307, the other charges in the case were bailable offenses.

The defense further claimed that the incident was an unfortunate accident rather than a deliberate act. As per the remand application dated December 28, 2023, the accused’s vehicle was already in motion when the constable attempted to stop it. The defense maintained that Mojar suddenly stepped in front of the car, leading to the accident. The lawyer also emphasized Ahmad’s young age and his underprivileged background, arguing that prolonged custody could negatively impact his future.

Prosecution’s Opposition to Bail

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sulbha Joshi opposed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the offense. She argued that the accused intentionally increased the speed of his vehicle despite seeing the constable in front of him, which demonstrated a clear intent to harm.

Joshi pointed out that CCTV footage captured the entire incident, confirming the accused’s deliberate act. She further stated that Ahmad had no regard for the law and had tried to evade arrest, forcing the police to conduct a strenuous investigation to locate him. The prosecution expressed concerns that, if granted bail, the accused might pressurize witnesses, destroy evidence, or flee to his native place in Uttar Pradesh.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

After carefully reviewing the arguments and evidence, Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar observed that the facts of the case indicated the accused had at least knowledge that accelerating his vehicle in such a manner could prove fatal. The court noted that instead of stopping when signaled, the accused deliberately increased speed, causing serious injuries to the traffic constable.

Judge Pawar further remarked that Ahmad’s previous conduct raised concerns about the possibility of him fleeing if released on bail. The investigating agency had to put in considerable effort to apprehend him, suggesting a lack of cooperation on his part. Given the seriousness of the charges and the ongoing investigation, the court ruled that granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate.

Final Order

Accordingly, the court rejected the bail application, stating that Ahmad’s release could hinder the investigation and pose a risk to witnesses and law enforcement officers.

With this ruling, the accused will remain in custody as the investigation proceeds. The case is expected to continue with further evidence collection and trial proceedings in the coming weeks.

Legal Implications and Public Reaction

Legal experts note that the ruling underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on crimes against law enforcement officers. Attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) is a non-bailable offense, and courts typically demand strong evidence of innocence before granting bail. In this case, the availability of CCTV footage and the nature of injuries sustained by the constable played a crucial role in the court’s decision.

The case has drawn significant public attention, with citizens and law enforcement personnel closely following the proceedings. Many have expressed support for the court’s decision, viewing it as a step towards ensuring the safety of police officers on duty.

As the legal battle continues, all eyes remain on further developments in this high-profile case.