Mumbai, February 26, 2024 – The Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Nazir Ahmed Abdul Aziz Khan @ Guddu, accused in an attempted murder case. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar, presiding over Court Room No. 37, denied the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 398 of 2024), citing eye-witness accounts, the severity of injuries, and the accused’s role in the alleged assault.

Khan was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 502 of 2023, registered at Wadala T.T. Police Station, for offenses under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian¹ Penal Code (IPC), along with sections² 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The Allegations and Arrest:

According to the prosecution, on October 24, 2023, at around 5:00 PM, the victim, Irfan Ansari, was loading cloth material into his vehicle near a shop when he was assaulted by Arman, Guddu (Khan), and Halim. The accused allegedly attacked Ansari on his neck, waist, and left thigh. When Ansari tried to escape, Khan and Halim continued to assault him with kicks and blows. Ansari eventually lost consciousness at a nearby shop and was hospitalized.

Defense Arguments:

Khan, through his advocate Arun Gupta, argued that he was falsely implicated and arrested on suspicion. He claimed that his role was limited to assaulting the victim with kicks and blows, and that the more serious assault was attributed to the co-accused. He asserted that he was not present at the scene and was in Talasari, Palghar, at the time of the incident. He argued that there was prior animosity between the parties and that the injuries were simple in nature.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Abhijeet Gondwal, opposed the bail application. They argued that Khan’s role was clearly established by three eye-witnesses who placed him at the scene. They stated that Khan and the co-accused had restrained the victim, facilitating the assault. They also highlighted that although the injuries were described as simple, there were eight stab wounds, including one on the chest, indicating an intention to cause serious harm.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Joglekar, after hearing arguments and reviewing the record, made the following observations:

• Plea of Alibi: The court noted that Khan’s plea of alibi was not supported by sufficient evidence, with only a tax invoice and slip presented.
• Eye-Witness Accounts: The court emphasized that three eye-witnesses had placed Khan at the scene of the crime.
• Role in Assault: The court found that Khan’s role in the assault was clear, as he and the co-accused had restrained and assaulted the victim.
• Severity of Injuries: The court considered the number and location of the stab wounds, indicating an intention to cause serious harm.
• Prima Facie Case: The court concluded that a prima facie case existed against Khan, and that further investigation was warranted.
• Tampering of Evidence: The court expressed concern about the possibility of Khan tampering with evidence if released on bail.
• Section 34 of IPC: The court noted that Khan’s role was in conjunction with the co-accused, and thus section 34 of the IPC was invoked, meaning his role cannot be isolated.

Judge Joglekar concluded that Khan’s application did not merit consideration and denied bail.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Eye-Witness Testimony: The court gave significant weight to the testimony of eye-witnesses.
• Severity of Injuries: The court considered the nature and extent of the injuries in determining the accused’s intention.
• Role of Accused: The court carefully assessed the accused’s role in the alleged crime.
• Prevention of Evidence Tampering: The court prioritized the prevention of evidence tampering.
• Section 34 Implication: The court made it clear that when section 34 is invoked, the accused’s role cannot be isolated.

This ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in cases involving serious offenses like attempted murder, particularly when there is strong evidence implicating the accused.