Mumbai, February 14, 2024 — In a notable case ruling, the Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar, granted bail to 23-year-old Chembur resident Aslam Rafiq Shaikh. Shaikh, who had been in custody since November 11, 2023, was released on a personal bond of ₹40,000 in connection with a criminal case registered at the RCF Police Station under C.R. No. 657/2023. The case involved charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 307 (attempted murder), as well as Sections 326, 324, 323, and 504, read with Section 34.

Background of the Case

The case stems from a reported altercation that took place on November 7, 2023, in an open space between two buildings in New RNA Park, Vashi Naka, Chembur. The informant, Mukesh Jadhav, filed a report alleging that his brother Manoj and a woman named Gulisa were engaged in a quarrel. During the incident, Shaikh, along with co-accused Noor Mohammad Shaikh and Aman Shaikh, allegedly intervened and assaulted Manoj with physical blows. It was further alleged that Aman attacked Mukesh with a belt, while Aslam Shaikh assaulted him with a bamboo stick, inflicting injuries on his head. Mukesh’s wife, Neelam, was also allegedly assaulted by Aman with a belt, causing an injury to her hand.

Court Arguments

Defense Counsel’s Argument

Advocate Imran Shaikh, representing Aslam Shaikh, argued that his client had been falsely implicated in the case. He contended that the charges under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC were not applicable based on the facts presented. Furthermore, he pointed out that Aslam had been in jail for over three months and that detaining him further served no purpose, especially given that the co-accused had already been granted bail.

The defense also highlighted that Aslam was prepared to adhere to any conditions the court imposed. They argued that the continued detention of Shaikh was unnecessary, as the investigation was complete, and a charge sheet had been filed.

Prosecution’s Argument

In opposition, the Investigating Officer, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor O.S. Maraskolhe, argued that if granted bail, Shaikh might attempt to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, including the complainant. The prosecution expressed concern that Shaikh might not comply with court orders if released, posing a risk to the judicial process. They therefore urged the court to deny the bail application.

Court’s Observations

Judge Salgar carefully reviewed the FIR, injury report, and witness statements before rendering his decision. The court observed inconsistencies between the alleged injuries described in the FIR and those documented in the medical report of the informant. Specifically, while the FIR claimed that Shaikh had struck Mukesh on the head with a bamboo stick, the medical certificate did not corroborate any head injuries. This discrepancy cast doubt on the gravity of the allegations against Shaikh.

The court also noted that the informant had been discharged from the hospital, indicating that his injuries were not life-threatening. Additionally, the court considered that no weapon was recovered from Shaikh during the investigation; only clothing items were confiscated as evidence.

Grounds for Bail

Judge Salgar granted bail to Aslam Shaikh on several grounds, including:

1. Contradictory Evidence: The alleged head injury described in the FIR was not supported by medical records, weakening the prosecution’s case.
2. Completion of Investigation: Since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, the court deemed continued detention unnecessary.
3. Parity with Co-accused: Given that a co-accused had already been granted bail, the court extended the same benefit to Shaikh to ensure fairness.
4. Personal Circumstances: Shaikh’s willingness to comply with bail conditions and his prolonged detention in jail also influenced the court’s decision.

Bail Conditions

Shaikh’s release is contingent upon strict adherence to several conditions set by the court to prevent any interference with the judicial process. The conditions are as follows:

1. Court Attendance: Shaikh is required to attend every court hearing without fail.
2. Restricted Access: He must avoid entering the vicinity where the informant resides to prevent any potential confrontation.
3. Provision of Contact Information: Shaikh and his sureties must provide their current addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses to the Investigating Officer. Any change in contact details must be immediately reported.
4. No Intimidation or Tampering: Shaikh is prohibited from influencing or intimidating any witnesses or tampering with evidence in any way.
5. Travel Restrictions: He cannot leave India without obtaining prior permission from the court.
6. Provisional Cash Bail: The court granted provisional cash bail of ₹40,000 for a period of four weeks, allowing him time to arrange a surety of the same amount.

Conclusion

With this order, the Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai reinforced the principle of fair treatment, considering both the defense’s and prosecution’s arguments as well as the evidence presented. The court stressed that any violation of the bail conditions by Shaikh would result in the immediate cancellation of his bail.

This ruling underscores the importance of a fair judicial process, especially in cases with conflicting accounts and questionable evidence. As the trial proceeds, all parties are expected to adhere strictly to legal procedures to ensure justice.

Nishant Upadhyay