MHCC020065772022
IN THE SESSIONS COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1200 OF 2022
(CRIME NO.91 OF 2022, SHAHU NAGAR POLICE STATION)
CNR No.MHCC02-006577-2022
Mohammad Ishaq Suleman Shaikh,
]
Aged about 32 years,
]
Residng at Room No.701, Sadabahar
]
Society, 60 Feet Road, Dharavi, Mumbai-17.]
(Presently accused is in Mumbai Central
]
Prison)
]
… Applicant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
]
2. The Senior Inspector of Police,
Shahunagar police station.

]
]
… Respondents
Appearances :Ms. Sangeeta B. Suchdev, Ld. Adv. for applicants.
Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, Ld. A.P.P. for respondents/State.
Mr. Asif Latif Shaikh, Ld. Adv. for intervener.
CORAM : VISHAL S. GAIKE,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM NO.22.
DATE : 9th June, 2022.
ORDER
This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No.91 of
2022 registered at Shahu Nagar police station for the offence
-2-
BA 1200/22
punishable under Sections 307, 324, 326, 323, 504, 506, 143, 145,
147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1) r/w. 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act and Section 4 r/w. 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, on 06/04/2022, the
complainant Peter Ponraj, resident of Rajiv Gandhi Chawl, Room
No.69, Dhorwada, Dharavi, Mumbai, gave report that he is residing
alone on the given address since last 20 years and is earning his
livelihood from his shop. On 06/04/2022, he was proceeding at
1.30 a.m. along with his friends Isai Balan, Ramji and Anabu Hasan for
having tea. They were passing through Kumbharwada junction and
proceeding towards Anna Nagar. When they reached near Kasturibai
Chawl, a person namely Adhistharaja called Isai Balan towards him.
Isai was reluctant to go near Adhistharaja, hence, he got angry and
scuffled with him. Isai Balan pushed Adhistharaja in self defence, but at
that time, 4-5 friends of Adhistharaja, namely Anil Shelte, Bhupati
Nadar, Kartik, Selva and Sultan started assaulting Isai Balan.
Adhistharaja asked Anil and Nadar to bring sickle and when the sickle
brought by Nadar. Adhistharaja assaulted Isai Balan. Therefore, the
complainant and his friends intervened and rescued Isai Balan and
immediately took him to Sion Hospital. Doctors referred him to I.C.U.
3.

The say of the Investigating Officer was called. He stated
that, the victim had sustained grievous injury to his head. Therefore, on
08/04/2022, Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 r/w.
25 of the Arms Act were invoked against the accused. On 09/04/2022,
the informant Peter voluntarily appeared in the police station and
requested to record his additional statement which he did not make in
-3-
BA 1200/22
the F.I.R. Hence, his additional statement was recorded. He stated that
the accused had conspired and with an intention to kill the
complainant and his friends, they committed the said crime in which
Isai Balan sustained grievous injury. Hence, on the basis of said
statement, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was also invoked
against the accused. The weapon i.e. sickle used in the commission of
offence was discovered at the behest of Adhistharaja and was seized
accordingly. The C.C.T.V. footage of the area was obtained in which it
can be seen that accused Nos.1 to 4 and one absconding accused are
assaulting the complainant and Isai Balan with wooden stump, an iron
pipe, etc.
4.

The certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence
Act was obtained in respect of the said C.C.T.V. footage. The medico
legal case paper pertaining to victim Isai Balan was obtained from Sion
Hospital, Mumbai, which states that he has sustained grievous injury to
his head. The Investigating Officer has further stated that the accused
have created the terror in their locality, therefore, no witness came
forward to give statement against them. If the applicant is released on
bail, then he may pressurise the complainant and witnesses and
hamper the investigation. Absconding accused are yet to be arrested.
Applicant may abscond and may not remain present in the Court. The
investigation is in progress and the applicant may hamper the
investigation, if he is granted bail. He may commit another cognizable
offence and disturb the law and order. The eye witnesses have given
statements against the applicant. Therefore, the application may be
rejected. The Investigating Officer has annexed the photographs of the
victim taken in the Hospital during his treatment.

-4-
5.

BA 1200/22
The complainant appeared during the hearing of the
application and filed his intervention application which was allowed.
6.

Heard the parties. Perused the record. Learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has not
committed any offence, as alleged. He has been falsely implicated by
the police and the complainant. In fact, the name of applicant is not
appearing in the F.I.R. and some Sultan is named as an accused.
Applicant is not known by the name of Sultan. The ingredients of
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted against the
applicant, as there is no prima facie material to come to the conclusion
that the accused had an intention to kill the complainant and the
victim. The F.I.R. does not disclose the time of information which was
received at the police station. No weapon is attributed to the applicant.
Investigation is almost completed. Hence, no further purpose would be
served by keeping the applicant behind the bars. He is ready to abide
any condition which may be imposed upon him, in the event of his
application being allowed. Hence, he may kindly be released on bail.
7.

Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application and
submitted that the investigation is in progress. The applicant is a
habitual offender and he may commit another cognizable offence
against the complainant and witnesses. Therefore, the bail application
may kindly be rejected.
8.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener
opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.
9.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by both
the parties. I have perused the record. The name of the applicant is not
-5-
BA 1200/22
specifically stated in the F.I.R. and the name of one Sultan is mentioned
as one of the assailants. It is contention of the applicant that he is not
Sultan. This fact has to be proved by the prosecution during the trial.
The M.L.C. paper of the victim reflects that he has sustained one
grievous injury on his left parietal region and rest of the eight injuries
are simple in nature. The contents of the F.I.R. reflects that there was
sudden fight between two groups in which the victim may have
sustained the alleged injuries. The sickle injury is not attributed to the
applicant and is attributed to main accused Adhistharaja. From the
contents of F.I.R., prima facie, ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code are not attracted. The police have invoked Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code on the basis of additional statement of the
informant recorded 3 days after the incident. The contents of case diary
reflects that substantial investigation has been completed. Admittedly,
the victim is discharged from the Hospital in the month of April itself.
The criminal antecedents of the applicant are alleged by the
investigating agency. But, no details of it are given in the say of the
Investigating Officer. Their appears no prima facie possibility that the
applicant would flee away from justice or commit similar offence. The
apprehension of prosecution regarding commission of similar offence
by him, may be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions.
Hence, I am inclined to allow the present application and proceed to
pass the following order :ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.1200 of 2022 is hereby allowed.

2.
Applicant Mohammad Ishaq Suleman Shaikh in C.R.No.91
of 2022 registered with Shahu Nagar police station for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 324, 326, 323, 504, 506, 143, 145,
-6-
BA 1200/22
147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37(1) r/w. 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act and Section 4 r/w. 25 of the Indian Arms Act,
shall be released on bail on executing their P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/with one surety in the like amount, and on following conditions :(a)
He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and
evidence ;
(b)
He shall furnish his detail address, mobile/contact number,
address proof and identity proof at the time of furnishing bail ;
(c)
In case of change of his residence or mobile/contact
number, he shall inform it to the Court and Investigating Officer ;
(d)
He shall attend the Court regularly ;
(e)
He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the
permission of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and if the case is
committed to this Court, without the permission of this Court ;
(f)
The applicant shall not give any threat or pressurise the
complainant and witnesses in any manner which may dissuade them
from disclosing any fact of the case to the police officer or to the Court.
3.
Bail shall be furnished before concerned Metropolitan
Magistrate. If the case is committed to this Court, then the bail shall be
furnished before this Court.
4.

Bail Application is disposed off accordingly.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
SADASHIVRAO
GAIKE
Date:
2022.06.14
12:09:00 +0530
Date : 09/06/2022.
Directly typed on Computer on
Printed on
Signed on
( VISHAL SADASHIVRAO GAIKE )
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT,
GREATER MUMBAI.
: 10/06/2022.
: 13/06/2022.
:
-7-
BA 1200/22
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
14/06/2022 at 12.10 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Bahushruta Y. Jambhale
Name of the Judge ( With Court H.H.J. Shri Vishal S. Gaike
Room No.)
(Court Room No.22)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 09/06/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
14/06/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
14/06/2022.