January 19, 2024 Mumbai, India – The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay has rejected the second bail application of Ibrahim Naeem Khan, a 41-year-old worker, under Criminal Bail Application No. 97/2024. The decision, passed on January 17, 2024, by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne in Court Room No. 30, was based on substantial arguments presented by both defense and prosecution. The court ruled that there was insufficient ground to release Khan due to his extensive criminal record, considering him a potential threat to justice and public safety.
Background of the Case
Khan was arrested on October 12, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 1688/2023, filed at the Kurla Railway Police Station under Sections 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 147 of the Indian Railway Act. These charges primarily involve theft and unlawful assembly with intent, in this instance, related to criminal activities on railway property. Since his arrest, Khan has remained in judicial custody, having already undergone custodial interrogation by authorities.
The Defense’s Argument
Khan’s defense, represented by Advocate Smita Pawar, argued that Khan is innocent and has been wrongfully implicated. Advocate Pawar emphasized that Khan is the sole earning member of his family and has no prior criminal record according to her claims, despite the prosecution’s assertions to the contrary. The defense argued that Khan has a stable residence at Bhagat Niwas on Mumbai Pune Road in Thane, which reduces any flight risk. Therefore, the defense requested that he be granted bail, considering the absence of new evidence and the hardship his prolonged detention places on his dependents.
Prosecution’s Standpoint
Opposing the bail, the prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, submitted a formal reply to the court, highlighting the risks of Khan being released on bail. Solkar stated that there is a strong likelihood that Khan might attempt to flee if released, jeopardizing the judicial process. The prosecution’s filing also expressed concerns that Khan could potentially threaten witnesses or tamper with evidence, given his alleged involvement in similar criminal activities in the past.
The prosecution further underscored that Khan has an extensive criminal record. In their submission, they presented that Khan has been convicted in nine previous cases of similar nature and has four additional pending cases against him. His repeat offenses suggest a pattern of criminal behavior, which they argued disqualifies him from bail. The prosecution warned that Khan, if released, could continue engaging in criminal acts, particularly those targeting railway properties.
Judicial Findings and Decision
Judge Sasne examined the records, prior judgments, and arguments presented by both sides. The court acknowledged that Khan’s criminal background, as highlighted by the prosecution, reveals a concerning pattern. In a previous order, the Metropolitan Magistrate similarly recognized Khan as a “repeated offender,” indicating that he was likely to reoffend and that his release could compromise ongoing investigations and evidence.
In light of these factors, Judge Sasne ruled that there was no change in circumstances that would justify releasing Khan on bail. The court agreed with the prosecution’s position that releasing Khan might lead to a recurrence of similar offenses and risk the integrity of evidence in the ongoing cases. Consequently, the judge dismissed the application for bail, deeming it against the public interest and justice.
The court’s final order read: “Criminal Bail Application No. 97 of 2024 is rejected and disposed of accordingly.”
Court’s Official Certification and Record Details
This judgment was dictated on January 17, 2024, transcribed on January 18, 2024, and signed by Judge Sasne on January 19, 2024. The order was certified as a true and correct copy by stenographer J.S. Chavan, with the official upload recorded at 5:35 p.m. on January 19, 2024.
Conclusion
The rejection of Khan’s bail highlights the legal system’s stance on protecting public interests and preventing recidivism in cases involving habitual offenders. Khan remains in custody, with the prosecution maintaining a firm stance against his release in an effort to ensure a fair trial and prevent any potential threats to the judicial process.
