The Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, has rejected the bail application filed by the accused, Fareen Salim Shaikh Alias Anshi @ Farin Vivek Shettiyar, in an order dated May 7th, 2024. The applicant was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 186 of 2024 registered at Antop Hill Police Station for serious offenses, including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (Attempt to Murder), along with charges under the Indian Arms Act (Sections 3 and 25) and the Maharashtra Police Act (Section 135). The court, presided over by Dr. A. A. Joglekar, found sufficient preliminary evidence to deny bail, concluding that granting relief at this stage would derail the investigation.

The Prosecution’s Case and Allegations of Connivance

The case stems from an incident on April 6th, 2024, where an unknown individual allegedly entered the informant’s house and fired a weapon at the informant’s son, causing injury to his stomach. While the FIR initially named an unknown individual, the investigation subsequently connected the applicant, Fareen Salim Shaikh, to the main accused.

The prosecution’s investigation revealed a crucial role played by the applicant:

1. Weapon Involvement: The applicant allegedly provided the firearm to the main accused and subsequently kept the weapon in her possession post-occurrence of the incident.
2. Digital and Financial Evidence: The police gathered strong circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, photographs showing the applicant and the main accused together in a hotel, and Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Subscriber Detail Records (SDRs) that corroborate their association.
3. Financial Links: Financial transactions between the applicant and the co-accused were also located, suggesting a deeper nexus.

The prosecution argued that the entire act was done in connivance, and given that the victim, his relatives, and the applicant reside in the same vicinity, there is a strong possibility of witness intimidation and evidence tampering if bail is granted.

Defense Arguments and The Court’s Analysis

The applicant’s counsel, Mr. Mangesh M. Deshmukh, argued for bail by stating that Fareen Salim Shaikh was falsely implicated merely on suspicion. The defense stressed that there was no mens rea (criminal intent) or specific role attributed to the applicant in the FIR, and she had no criminal antecedents.

The court, however, meticulously examined the case records and the arguments. In its analysis, the court pointed out several factors that established a strong prima facie case against the applicant, overriding the claims of false implication:

1. Undenied Acquaintance: The court noted that the applicant did not deny her acquaintance with the co-accused, which is a key link in the conspiracy.
2. Connecting Evidence: The existence of WhatsApp chats, CCTV footage, CDR, SDR locations, and financial transactions directly connected the applicant to the co-accused and the crime.
3. Bodily Offence: Considering the gravity of the crime, which is a bodily offense (Attempt to Murder), the court could not view the applicant’s role “in isolation.”
4. Nascent Stage of Investigation: The court stressed that the investigation is at a nascent stage. Crucially, the statement of the eye-witness is yet to be recorded before the Magistrate, and granting bail now would “naturally have an impact on the witness” and derail the momentum of the investigation.

Conclusion of the Court

The court held that while deciding a bail application, it must primarily look at whether a prima facie case exists, without engaging in a detailed examination of the merits. Finding sufficient prima-facie material shown by the prosecution—especially the evidence of connivance and the need to protect the integrity of the pending investigation—the Additional Sessions Judge ruled that this was not a fit case for the grant of bail.

Consequently, Bail Application No. 1088/2024 stands rejected and disposed of.