MHCC020036012022
IN THE SESSIONS COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.622 OF 2022
(CRIME NO.57 OF 2022, MAHIM POLICE STATION)
CNR No.MHCC02-003601-2022
Mohamed Mustafa Rafik Shaikh,
Age : 24 years, Occ. : Delivery Boy,
Residing at Room No.760, Muslim Nagar,
Kumbharwada, 90 Feet Road, Near Sunder
Vilas Hotel, Dharavi, Mumbai – 400 017.

]
]
]
]
]
… Applicant/
Accused
Vs.
State (At the instance of Mahim Police
Station) within the Jurisdiction of
9th Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Bandra, Mumbai.

]
]
]
]
… Respondent
Appearances :Mr. S. A. Shakir, Ld. Adv. for applicant.
Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, Ld. A.P.P. for respondent/State.
CORAM : PURUSHOTTAM B. JADHAV,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM NO.22.
DATE : 23rd March, 2022.
Addl. Sessions Judge
-2-
BA 622/22
ORDER
1.

This
is
an
application
for
regular
bail.

The
respondent/State resisted it by filing say at Exh.2. Read the application
and say. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
2.

In Crime No.57 of 2022 under Section 307 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code registered with Mahim police station, it is alleged
that on 02/03/2022, at about 2.00 p.m., the first informant went to
work, but till 5.00 p.m., he did not get any delivery order, hence, he
returned to his house. On the same day, at about 9.00 p.m., he again
went to the work. At that time, there was exchange of hot words
between the informant on one part and accused including the applicant
on the other part. Both the accused started assaulting the first
informant and then, the first informant assaulted them with punch. At
that time, accused Swapnil Pawar took out the knife, but it fell down on
the ground and by picking it, the first informant gave blow of knife on
the stomach and shoulder of accused Swapnil Pawar. The first
informant also gave blow of knife on the face of applicant. Then
accused Swapnil caught hold the first informant and the present
applicant assaulted the informant with iron pipe on his head and back.
3.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant lodged report with the same police station and Crime No.56
of 2022 under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is registered
against Azam Ali i.e. first informant in the present case. He submitted
that though, the said F.I.R. filed by applicant discloses offence under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the crime is not registered under
the said Section. He submitted that the F.I.R. in the present case does
Addl. Sessions Judge
-3-
BA 622/22
not disclose offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. So far
as this submission is concerned, it may be noted that it is specifically
alleged in the F.I.R. that first informant assaulted accused Swapnil
Pawar with knife on his stomach and shoulder. It is further alleged that
the accused Swapnil caught hold the informant and this applicant
assaulted the first informant with iron pipe on head and back. The head
is vital part and blow with iron pipe on such vital part shows the
intention of the accused to kill the first informant. Therefore, it cannot
be said that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out.
4.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the first
informant in this case, is already released on bail, on the same day in
the crime registered at the instance of the applicant. I am failed to
understand for what purpose, this submission is made. It cannot be said
that therefore, the applicant herein is entitled for the bail. This case is
to be considered on the grounds taken in this case. There may be F.I.R.
and cross F.I.R. It would be the matter of investigation and anything
can be said only after completion of the investigation. At this stage, the
F.I.R. clearly discloses offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code against the applicant and other accused.
5.

Learned A.P.P. submitted that the applicant has specific role
in the commission of offence. One of the weapon is also recovered at
the instance of applicant. The applicant assaulted the first informant
with iron pipe on head and back. The said iron pipe is also appearing in
the C.C.T.V. footage. He further submitted that the offence is serious
and it is to be investigated who is involved in this case. He also
Addl. Sessions Judge
-4-
BA 622/22
submitted that there is possibility of tampering of witnesses and non
co-operation of the applicant in the investigation.
6.

Undisputedly, offence under Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code is serious one. Considering the allegations made in F.I.R.
and cross F.I.R., I am of the opinion that there is every possibility of
tampering of witnesses. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant is not
entitled for the bail during investigation. The application deserves to be
rejected. Accordingly, I pass the following order :ORDER
Bail Application No.622 of 2022 is rejected and disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed
by
PURUSHOTTAM
BHAURAO
JADHAV
Date: 2022.03.24
11:46:40 +0530
Date : 23/03/2022.

( Purushottam B. Jadhav )
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT,
GREATER MUMBAI.

Directly typed on Computer on : 23/03/2022.
Printed on
: 23/03/2022.
Signed on
:
Addl. Sessions Judge
-5-
BA 622/22
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
24/03/2022 at 12.00 noon
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Bahushruta Y. Jambhale
Name of the Judge ( With Court H.H.J. Shri. Purushottam
Room No.)
Jadhav (Court Room No.22)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 23/03/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
24/03/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
24/03/2022.

Addl. Sessions Judge
B.