The grant or rejection of a bail application often hinges on the principle of individual culpability, even when multiple accused persons are charged with the same serious offences. This judicial differentiation was the core outcome in Bail Application No. 838 of 2024, decided by the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai. The application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sought regular bail for three applicants: Mr. Saif Ayub Khan (Applicant No. 1), Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Hanif Sayyed (Applicant No. 2), and Danish Ayyub Qureshi (Applicant No. 3). All were charged in connection with C.R. No. 89/2024 registered at the Deonar Police Station for grave offences including attempted murder (Section 307 IPC), criminal intimidation (Section 506(2) IPC), assault (Section 323 IPC), and rioting with deadly weapons (Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 IPC), along with Sections 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The court’s order, which partially allowed the application, provides a salient lesson on the judicial scrutiny of the role played by each accused person in an alleged crime.
Judicial Scrutiny of Individual Roles and the Principle of Differentiation
The applicants’ counsel contended that they were innocent, falsely implicated, and that no purpose would be served by their continued detention as the investigation was nearing completion and no recovery was to be effected from them. Conversely, the Investigating Officer, through the learned APP, vehemently opposed the application, arguing that the offence was serious, the applicants’ names appeared in the First Information Report (FIR), and their release would lead to tampering with prosecution witnesses. The court, however, did not take a blanket approach, instead opting to analyze the specific allegations in the FIR against each individual applicant.
The court first examined the case against Applicant No. 1, Saif Ayub Khan. The crucial finding here was that the allegations against him were limited. The FIR specifically stated that Saif assaulted the witness Tushar merely with a fist blow. Critically, the FIR did not allege that Saif had assaulted the informant or his brother with any weapon, nor was he accused of using a deadly weapon himself. Given this limited role, the court determined that nothing was to be recovered at his instance and that the investigation was almost complete concerning him. Concluding that keeping him behind bars would serve no further purpose, the court was satisfied that Saif Ayub Khan was entitled to be released on regular bail.
Active Role with Deadly Weapons Leads to Bail Rejection for Co-Accused
The court’s approach took a decidedly different turn when it considered Applicant No. 2, Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Hanif Sayyed, and Applicant No. 3, Danish Ayyub Qureshi. The allegations against these two were far more severe and specific, directly attracting the seriousness of the charges, particularly under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder).
In the case of Applicant No. 2, Mohd. Shafi Sayyed, the FIR contained specific allegations that he assaulted the informant by means of a sword on his head, causing a grievous injury. Furthermore, he was alleged to have brandished the sword towards another witness, Tushar. The court viewed this as clear evidence of an active role in the crime with the use of a deadly weapon. Similarly, Applicant No. 3, Danish Ayyub Qureshi, was also alleged to have played an active role, with specific allegations that he was holding a sharp weapon and used it to assault the witness Tushar.
The court explicitly stated that the roles of Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were “specifically described” in the FIR and that there was prima facie sufficient material to show their direct involvement and active participation with deadly weapons. Given that the alleged offence was serious, and with the investigation still in progress, the court entertained the apprehension that granting bail to the two co-accused who used deadly weapons would lead to tampering with prosecution witnesses or the commission of similar offences. Therefore, in the final order, the court rejected the bail application in respect of Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Hanif Sayyed and Danish Ayyub Qureshi. The application was partly allowed, granting regular bail to Applicant No. 1, Saif Ayub Khan, on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with specific conditions, including attending the police station every Sunday until the charge-sheet is filed, not committing similar offences, and not tampering with evidence. This order perfectly illustrates how the gravity of the offence is viewed not just by the sections invoked, but by the specific, individual involvement of each accused person.