The principle of discerning the specific role of an accused person in a crime is paramount in bail jurisprudence, particularly when charges include severe sections like Attempt to Murder (Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code). The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, in its order dated April 30, 2024, on Bail Application No. 981 of 2024, granted bail to the applicant, Shahid Nishar Shaikh, largely on the grounds that the First Information Report (FIR) failed to attribute any distinct and culpable action to him. The case, arising from C.R. No. 162/2024 registered at Deonar Police Station, involved multiple serious charges, including 307, 385 (Extortion), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 504, 506(2) of the IPC, and sections of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Judicial Scrutiny of the Applicant’s Alleged Involvement
The prosecution, represented by Learned APP Mr. Sachin Patil, strongly opposed the application. The Investigating Officer’s reply (Exh. 2) contended that the investigation was at an initial stage and that the applicant had committed a serious offense in collusion with other accused persons. The usual apprehensions were raised: that granting bail would lead to the applicant committing similar offenses and destroying prosecution evidence. The charges were undoubtedly severe, suggesting a violent, organized crime.
However, the defense, led by Learned Advocate Mr. Jabbar, mounted an effective counter-argument by pointing directly to the FIR’s omissions. The defense highlighted that while the complainant named four accused persons, the applicant’s name was not mentioned in the FIR. A significant point of confusion was noted: the FIR named an accused as “Sahil (Accused No. 3),” whereas the present applicant’s name is Shahid Nishar Shaikh, and his name was recorded as such in the remand report. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Shri A.S. Salgar, concluded from this that the name of the applicant/accused is not mentioned in the F.I.R.
More critically, the court meticulously analyzed the actions attributed to the accused persons named in the FIR, separating the direct assailants from the peripheral figures. The FIR alleged that one accused, Rahul, “inflicted blow by knife to informant and witness Sachin,” and another accused, Sahil, “inflicted blow to witness Sachin by bamboo stick.” In stark contrast to these serious allegations, the court found “no allegations against applicant/accused that he assaulted to informant or any witnesses” or that he inflicted any blows by a knife or bamboo stick. This distinction led the court to a crucial finding: “Thus it is clear that there is no specific role attributed to applicant/accused in the said crime.”
Conclusion of Investigation and Lack of Criminal Antecedents
Further bolstering the case for bail, the court observed that nothing was recovered at the instance of the applicant, suggesting that for him, “most of the investigation is completed.” The applicant had been in judicial custody since April 8, 2024. Considering that the applicant was a permanent resident of Mumbai and had no criminal antecedent, the court found that the dual requirement for continuing detention—the need for custodial interrogation and the risk of the accused absconding—was not satisfied in his individual case. The absence of a specific role, coupled with the completion of the investigation concerning him and his clean criminal record, outweighed the general seriousness of the crime and the prosecution’s general apprehension of witness tampering.
Consequently, the court granted the application, allowing Shahid Nishar Shaikh to be released on regular bail on furnishing a Personal Bond (P.B.) and Surety Bond (S.B.) of Rs. 25,000/− with one or two sureties of the like amount. To ensure the integrity of the pending investigation and trial, the court imposed strict conditions. The applicant was directed to attend the concerned police station every Sunday between 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. till the filing of the charge-sheet and was strictly warned against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. To facilitate immediate release, the court also allowed provisional cash bail of Rs. 25,000/− for four weeks to enable the applicant to furnish the solvent surety. This order powerfully demonstrates the judicial commitment to examining the individualized evidence against each accused, ensuring that liberty is not curtailed based merely on association with other alleged offenders.