In a significant decision on May 8, 2024, the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai granted regular bail to Sohel Mustak Khan, the applicant in Bail Application No. 961 of 2024. The applicant was charged with extremely serious offenses, including Attempt to Murder (Section 307 IPC), Robbery with Deadly Weapon (Section 397 IPC), and House-trespass (Section 452 IPC), in connection with C.R. No. 22/2024 registered at Trombay Police Station. Additional Sessions Judge A.S. Salgar allowed the second bail application, ruling that the filing of the charge-sheet constituted a change in circumstances and, crucially, that the medical certificate on record contradicted the primary allegation regarding the use of a sharp weapon. The court also dismissed the prosecution’s opposition based solely on the applicant’s criminal antecedents, underscoring that the mere pendency of other cases is not a sufficient ground for denying liberty.
The Serious Allegations and Procedural History
The case against Sohel Mustak Khan arose from a report lodged by the informant, Bramhanand Das, detailing an incident on January 17, 2024, around 10:30 a.m. The core allegation stated that the applicant, Sohel Khan, demanded a free cigarette packet from the informant, who runs a pan stall. Upon refusal, Sohel Khan allegedly became angry, took out a knife, and inflicted a blow towards the informant’s chest. The informant raised his right hand in self-defense, causing the knife to strike and injure his little finger. The allegations further expanded to include Sohel Khan’s brother, Firoz Khan, who allegedly bit the informant’s brother. The accused persons were also charged with entering the informant’s house, throwing articles, and forcefully stealing Rs. 5,000/- in cash, leading to the serious charges under Sections 307, 397, and 452 of the IPC, among others. The applicant had been in jail since January 17, 2024, and his first bail application, No. 251/2024, had been previously rejected.
Change in Circumstance and Contradictory Evidence
The applicant, represented by Ld. Advocate Ms. Rui Danawala, filed a second bail application after the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed. This procedural development was key, as the court recognized it as a “change in circumstance,” rendering the second bail application maintainable.
The court then delved into the specifics of the evidence, which ultimately tilted the scales in favor of the applicant. While the FIR explicitly alleged that the applicant inflicted a blow with a knife toward the chest, the court examined the Medical Certificate on record. The judicial scrutiny revealed a significant discrepancy: the medical report indicated that the injury sustained by the complainant was simple in nature and, critically, that the injury was caused by a blunt object, not a sharp knife. This finding directly challenged the basis of the severe charges under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and Section 397 (Robbery with Deadly Weapon), as the claim of using a sharp knife was potentially falsified by the medical evidence. The court noted that “vital part of organ was not damaged in the incident.”
Dismissal of Criminal Antecedents as Sole Ground for Refusal
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Sachin Patil, strongly resisted the bail plea, characterizing the applicant as a “habitual offender” with existing criminal antecedents, arguing that his release would lead to the tampering of evidence.
The court, however, firmly rejected this contention. It held that the submission that bail cannot be granted “merely because other criminal cases are pending against applicant/accused, the bail cannot be refused to him.” The court clarified the legal position, stating that the “mere pendency of criminal cases against the applicant/accused is not a sufficient ground for denying bail” and that the other criminal cases “would not come in the way of grant of bail.” With the charge-sheet already filed, the court reasoned that no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant detained for an indefinite period until the commencement of the trial.
Bail Granted on Stringent Conditions
Considering the completion of the investigation, the non-fatal nature of the injury, the contradiction between the knife allegation and the medical certificate, and the applicant’s status as a permanent resident of Mumbai, the court deemed the applicant entitled to regular bail. Sohel Mustak Khan was ordered to be released on a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 30,000/- along with one or more sureties in the like amount.
The court imposed a set of stringent conditions to ensure his participation in the legal process and prevent interference: the applicant must attend court on all dates, not tamper with evidence or influence prosecution witnesses, and not leave India without the prior permission of the Sessions Court. The order explicitly warned that the breach of any condition shall result in the cancellation of bail, ensuring that the grant of liberty is closely tied to his adherence to judicial terms.