Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Sessions Court in Mumbai has denied bail to Farukh Musaheb Khan, a 23-year-old accused in a violent stabbing incident that occurred in October 2021. The order, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge R. M. Sadrani on April 19, 2022, highlights the gravity of the injuries inflicted, the nature of the weapon used, and the applicant’s prior criminal history.
Khan, a mobile repair shop worker residing in Wadala, had applied for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is an accused in C.R. No. 523 of 2021 registered at Wadala Police Station, facing charges under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 506(II) (criminal intimidation), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act, and Sections 37(1)(A), 135, 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Prosecution Details Brutal Attack and Alleged Motive
According to the prosecution, led by APP Abhijeet Gondwal, the incident stemmed from a dispute over alleged damage to a two-wheeler belonging to Khan’s friend. The informant, Santosh Padmakar Ambade, a supervisor at Labdhi Towers, stated that Khan had demanded ₹5,000 as compensation.
On October 20, 2021, at around 8:30 PM, Khan, accompanied by co-accused Arbaj and Wasim, allegedly entered Ambade’s office. An argument ensued, during which the accused verbally abused Ambade. When Shoeb Daware, an individual working in the same office, attempted to intervene, Khan and co-accused Arbaj reportedly pulled out knives from their pockets and stabbed Daware in the stomach and back. Daware was immediately hospitalized at Sion Hospital, and the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on the same day.
APP Gondwal emphasized the severity of the assault, pointing out that the stabbing occurred in the stomach, a vital organ, and resulted in a life-threatening penetrating injury as per medical opinion. The prosecution presented photographs of the crime scene and highlighted that one knife, described as “dangerous to life,” was recovered from the spot, while another was allegedly destroyed by the accused. They also mentioned the presence of eyewitnesses, whose statements were recorded, albeit not on the same day due to the late hour of the incident. The prosecution argued that carrying such a weapon clearly indicated the accused’s intention.
Defense Cites Delay, Victim’s Background, and Parity
Advocate R.P. Singh, representing the applicant, argued that Khan was arrested on October 24, 2021, and has since been in judicial custody. This was his first bail application after the filing of the chargesheet.
The defense contended that the victim himself had a criminal background with multiple cases registered against him. It was also highlighted that the victim’s statement was recorded two days after the FIR, and eyewitness statements were not taken on the day of the incident. Mr. Singh asserted that there was no intention to commit murder. Furthermore, he sought bail on the ground of parity, stating that co-accused Wasim had already been released on bail.
Court’s Decision: Grievous Injury and Criminal History Preclude Bail
After reviewing the arguments and the case record, Judge R. M. Sadrani focused on the medical opinion regarding the victim’s injuries and the nature of the weapon used. The doctor’s opinion clearly stated: “The injury on the anterior aspect of abdomen was life threatening. It is possible that weapon described in the letter which is a sharp weapon has caused these injuries.”
The court also took into consideration the prosecution’s submission regarding Khan’s criminal history, which reportedly includes both body and property offenses. The judge observed that the knife recovered from the scene “apparently is of such a nature which is dangerous to the life as appears from the photographs of the spot.”
Based on “all these facts and circumstances,” the court concluded that it was “not a fit case to grant bail.” Consequently, Bail Application No. 678 of 2022 was rejected, and the application was disposed of.
The decision underscores the court’s priority on the severity of the offense, the nature of the harm inflicted, and the potential risk posed by an accused with a prior criminal record, especially in cases involving violent acts.