The principle that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, and its practical application is frequently tested in bail proceedings. The recent order from the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, dated March 19, 2024, in Bail Application No. 617 of 2024 concerning the applicant Rizwan Mohammed Akhtar Khan, serves as a powerful illustration of the judicial commitment to this principle. The applicant was seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with C.R. No. 34/2024, registered at Deonar Police Station for offences under Sections 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 323, 506, and 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court’s decision, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Shri A.S. Salgar, meticulously weighed the severity of the charges and the applicant’s criminal history against the conclusion of the investigation and the right to freedom pending trial.

The prosecution’s case was based on a report lodged by the informant, Mohd. Akhtar Kitabulla Khan, alleging that the incident occurred on January 14, 2024, but the FIR was lodged four days later, on January 18, 2024—a delay in lodging the report which was noted by the court. The specific allegation against the applicant was that he “inflicted blow by means of bamboo stick on jaw of informant and caused injury.” The defense, represented by Learned Advocate Mr. Jabali, argued for bail on several grounds: the delay in the FIR, the non-grievous nature of the injury, the recovery of the weapon (bamboo stick), and the principle of parity, citing that a co-accused, Gulzar Ali, had already been granted bail by the same court.

The prosecution, through Learned APP Mr. Sachin Patil, strongly resisted the application. The Investigating Officer’s reply (Exh. 2) voiced the typical apprehensions that the applicant might pressure the complainant and witnesses and fail to appear before the court. Most notably, the prosecution brought to the court’s attention the applicant’s extensive criminal antecedent, stating that a total of 22 crimes were registered against him and arguing that he was a “habitual offender,” making him undeserving of bail.

The Sessions Court’s scrutiny of the material and the legal arguments proved decisive. Judge Salgar found that the investigation was “practically completed,” as the investigating officer had recorded witness statements, drawn the spot panchanama, seized the weapon, and collected the injury certificate. This completion of the core investigative tasks negated the need for continued custodial interrogation. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the mitigating factors: the complainant was “discharged from hospital and he is out of danger,” and the delay in the FIR also created a shadow of doubt that could not justify prolonged detention. Applying the principle of parity, the court stressed that since co-accused Gulzar Ali was released on bail, the applicant was also “entitled for bail” on that ground.

Crucially, the court directly addressed the prosecution’s forceful argument regarding the applicant’s criminal history involving 22 crimes. The court definitively ruled that “Merely because there are other crimes are pending against applicant/accused, only on that count bail cannot be denied to the applicant/accused.” This powerful observation upholds the legal tenet that pre-trial detention cannot be used as a pre-emptive punishment for past or potential future conduct, as that would amount to “pre-trial conviction.” Finding that the investigation was practically over and that denying bail solely on the basis of criminal antecedents was impermissible, the court allowed the application.

Consequently, Criminal Bail Application No. 617 of 2024 was allowed, and Rizwan Mohammed Akhtar Khan was ordered to be released on a P. R. Bond of Rs. 40,000/− with one or more sureties. To mitigate the risk of witness intimidation, a specific and stringent condition was imposed: the applicant was “directed not to enter into the vicinity wherein the informant resides.” Additionally, he was directed to attend the police station every Sunday until the charge-sheet was filed and was given four weeks to furnish the surety by granting provisional cash bail, all while being explicitly warned that any breach of conditions would result in the cancellation of bail. This final order perfectly exemplifies how courts grant conditional liberty by focusing on the investigation’s status and the specific role in the instant crime, rather than allowing general allegations of being a “habitual offender” to override the fundamental right to bail.