Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Sessions Court in Greater Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Nohid Noor Mohd Khan, a 28-year-old businessman, who was arrested in connection with a robbery and criminal intimidation case. The court cited his extensive criminal record, deeming him a “habitual offender.”
Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Shri. U.J. More (C.R. No. 58) issued the order on April 11, 2022, in Bail Application No. 685 of 2022. Khan was booked by Ghatkopar Police Station under C.R. No. 72 of 2022 for offenses punishable under Sections 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) and 506(II) (criminal intimidation with threat to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Details of the Incident
According to the prosecution, on February 25, 2022, at 8:00 a.m., the complainant, Anant Karshingarkar, was walking near Ghatkopar Railway Station. A man, identified as the applicant, allegedly ran in front of him, pushed him, assaulted him on his ear, and knocked him down. The assailant then took a mobile phone from Karshingarkar’s shirt pocket. When the complainant shouted for help, and pedestrians and autorickshaws approached, the accused allegedly removed a knife from his pocket and threatened everyone by shouting, “Agar koi beach me aayega toh usko kat dunga” (If anyone intervenes, I will cut them). Despite the threat, people chased and apprehended him. An FIR was subsequently registered.
Applicant’s Defense
Advocate Ashwini Gaikwad, representing Nohid Noor Mohd Khan, argued that the applicant was falsely implicated and that his family was entirely dependent on him. She contended that the First Information Report (FIR) was silent about the recovery of the mobile phone in the panchanama, and further, that Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code was not applicable to the facts of the case.
Court’s Rationale for Rejecting Bail
The court heard arguments from both Advocate Gaikwad and APP Sachin Patil for the State. Upon perusing the application and the prosecution’s “say” (reply), the court’s decision was heavily influenced by Khan’s prior criminal history.
The order explicitly states: “It reveals that more than 15 property offence as well as body offences are pending against the accused at Bhandup Police Station, Parksite Police Station, Kanjurmarg Police Station and Powai Police Station. He is habitual offender having same modus operandi.”
Considering this extensive criminal background, the court expressed concern that releasing Khan on bail “will go wrong message in the society and it will be detriment to the safety of the property of the society.” The judge concluded that, given Khan’s “habitual act of commission of offence,” this case did not fall “within the ambit of principle jail is exception, bail is rule.”
Therefore, the court rejected Bail Application No. 685 of 2022, stating it was “devoid of merits.”