The Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, in an oral order delivered on May 8th, 2024, granted regular bail to the applicant, Salludin @ Sallu DJ Mohd. Said Khan, in a case involving serious charges including attempted murder (Section 307 IPC). The bail application, Criminal Bail Application No. 996 of 2024, was filed in connection with C.R. No. 162/2024 registered at Deonar Police Station, where the applicant faced multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 307, 385 (Extortion), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult), and 506(2) (Criminal intimidation), alongside relevant sections of the Maharashtra Police Act. The court, presided over by Addl. Sessions Judge Shri A.S. Salgar, fundamentally based its decision on the limited role attributed to the applicant in the First Information Report (FIR) and the established principle that mere pendency of other criminal cases is not sufficient ground to deny bail.
Analyzing the Accused’s Role in the Assault
The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail plea, characterizing Mr. Khan as the principal accused and citing his existing criminal antecedents as a risk factor for evidence tampering. The court, however, undertook a detailed scrutiny of the FIR to ascertain the specific role of the applicant in the commission of the offenses. The court observed that the FIR did mention Mr. Khan (accused No. 1) demanding an amount of ₹1,000/- from the witness Sachin and subsequently assaulting him with fist blows and kick blows. Crucially, the court found that all allegations pertaining to the use of weapons and the attempt to commit murder were directed against the co-accused, specifically naming accused Sahil for assaulting the witness with a bamboo stick and accused Jagavar for inflicting knife blows on both the complainant’s back and the witness Sachin’s neck. The judicial finding was clear: the role attributed to the applicant was a “very limited one” and did not involve the use of any deadly weapon or the intent to kill the complainant or witness.
Investigation Status and Overcoming Objections
The court noted that the investigation, as far as the applicant was concerned, was “practically completed.” The investigating officer had already recorded the statements of witnesses and had seized the weapons—the wooden bamboo stick from one accused and the knife from accused Rahul (likely Jagavar in the FIR, given the context). Significantly, nothing had been recovered at the instance of the applicant. With the investigation nearing completion and the essential evidence secured, the court determined that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant, who had been in jail since April 8th, 2024, detained for an indefinite period pending the commencement of trial.
A major point of contention raised by the Learned APP was the applicant’s criminal antecedents. The court, guided by precedent, firmly rejected the notion that the mere pendency of other criminal cases is a sufficient and sole reason to deny bail. The court emphasized that “The other criminal cases would not come in the way of grant of bail.” Finding that the core objections could be managed through stringent judicial controls, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to conditional liberty.
Conditions Imposed for Conditional Liberty
The court, therefore, allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 996 of 2024. Salludin @ Sallu DJ Mohd. Said Khan was ordered to be released on a P.R. Bond of ₹25,000/- along with one or more sureties in the like amount. To address the nature of the crime and the safety of the witnesses, the court imposed several strict conditions:
The applicant is directed to attend Deonar Police Station every Sunday of each month between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon till the filing of the charge-sheet. Crucially, to prevent any potential coercion or intimidation, the applicant shall not enter into the vicinity where the informant resides. Furthermore, he is prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts, or from tampering with evidence. A provision for Provisional Cash Bail of ₹25,000/- was allowed for a period of four weeks, ensuring the applicant’s immediate release while he arranges for the formal surety. This judgment serves as a robust example of how courts analyze the proportionality of an accused’s role, ensuring that pre-trial detention is not unduly punitive when the investigative necessity has passed.