1
B.A. 959/24
MHCC020063532024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.959 OF 2024
Samir Mujib Shaikh @ Samir Ishaq Shaikh
An adult, aged : 29 years,
Occ : Labour,
Residing at Chheda Nagar Zopadpatti,
Next to Football Ground, Pantnagar,
Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 086.

….Applicant
– Versus The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Kurla Railway Police Station,
vide C.R.No.1488/2023)
.… Respondent
Appearance :Adv. Pawankumar G. Dhand for the Applicant/accused.
APP Iqbal Solkar for the State.

CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 29/04/2024
ORDER
This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of The
Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on bail in connection with
C.R.No.1488/2023 registered with Kurla Railway Police Station,
Mumbai for the commission of offences punishable u/sec. 379 of The
Indian Penal Code.

2
2.

B.A. 959/24
It is the contention of the applicant / accused that he is
innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused is
arrested on 06.03.2024. The applicant / accused submits that he has
undergone custodial interrogation. The investigation is completed. The
applicant is the sole earning member in the family. There is no point in
keeping the accused behind bars till conclusion of trial. There is no
criminal antecedents against the accused. He is the permanent resident
of his given address therefore he prayed for releasing him on bail.

3.

The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply
vide Exh.2. It is the contention of the prosecution that if the accused is
released on bail there are chances that he may flee away from justice. If
the accused is released on bail there are chances of threatening of
prosecution witnesses and tampering of prosecution evidence. Hence,
prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.

4.

Read the application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard
the ld. Advocate for the applicant, ld. APP for the respondent / State.

5.

I have gone through the application, reply, documents filed
on record. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.09.2023 at about
11.30 p.m. when the informant was running to catch the local train,
Unkown accused committed theft of his mobile handset. Accordingly
report is lodged and offence is registered.
6.

The accused is habitual offender. It is the contention of the
prosecution that there is CCTV footage regarding the incident. The
3
B.A. 959/24
accused came to be arrested on 06.03.2024. No recovery is made. The
ld advocate for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Sanjay
Chandra V/s. CBI 2012(1) SCC (Cri) 26 wherein it is held that if any
accused is detained before conviction then it will put unnecessary
burden on state to keep a person who is not proved guilty.
7.

The
prosecution
relied
upon
the
judgment
in
C.C.No.847/PW/2015 to show that the accused is habitual offender.
From the facts on record it appears that the accused is facing trial for
the offences punishable u/Sec.379 of the IPC. He has been convicted in
C.C.No.847/PW/2015. Inspite of conviction in another case the accused
appears to have committed this crime. As the accused is habitual
offender and previously convicted in the like offences, if he is released
on bail he will commit same type of offence again. He will tamper with
the prosecution evidence. There are chances that the applicant will flee
away from the justice. Hence, I am of the view that applicant / accused
is not entitled for the bail. In the result, I pass the following order :
ORDER
Criminal Bail Application No.959 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off
accordingly.
Date : 29/04/2024
Dictated on
: 29.04.2024
Transcribed on
: 30.04.2024
Signed by HHJ on : 03.05.2024
RAJESH
ANIRUDDHA
SASNE
Digitally signed
by RAJESH
ANIRUDDHA
SASNE
Date: 2024.05.04
16:22:18 +0530
( RAJESH A. SASNE )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.

4
B.A. 959/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORDER.”
04/05/2024
2.45 p.m.

UPLOAD DATE
TIME
J.S. Chavan
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri. R.A.
Room No.)
Sasne, Court Room No. 30.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 29/04/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
04/05/2024
ORDER uploaded on
04/05/2024