The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai recently delivered a significant ruling in Criminal Bail Application No. 1161 of 2024, granting bail to the applicant, Mr. Rais Ahmed Abdul Aziz Qureshi. This case, stemming from C.R. No. 330/2024 registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, involved a serious gang assault with multiple charges, including the formidable Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), alongside Section 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), and various unlawful assembly charges under the Indian Penal Code, combined with provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act. The court’s decision, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Shri A. A. Kulkarni on May 6, 2024, meticulously analyzed the specific role attributed to the applicant, finding that his alleged actions did not prima facie support the most severe charge of attempted murder.

The prosecution’s narrative, strongly opposed by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi and the intervener (complainant) represented by Ms. S. S. Luman, painted a picture of a brutal and coordinated assault. The First Information Report (FIR) detailed an incident on April 16, 2024, where a group of accused, including the applicant, attacked the informant and his friend near the Durga Seva Sangh in Govandi. The allegations against the co-accused were severe, mentioning one accused assaulting the informant with a knife on the head and another strangling him with a rope, clearly indicating an intent to inflict grievous harm, if not death. The intervener’s counsel even submitted photographs to the court to underscore the severity of the injuries and raised concerns that the applicant and his co-accused were still threatening the informant. The prosecution firmly resisted bail, citing the preliminary stage of the investigation, the applicant’s active role in the commission of the offense, and the high possibility of tampering with evidence given that the parties reside in the same locality.

The defense, led by Learned Advocate Ms. J. R. Sahu, focused squarely on mitigating the applicant’s involvement. They contended that the applicant was falsely implicated and, crucially, had “not assigns any role in the alleged offence” that would warrant a charge under Section 307 of the IPC. They highlighted that there were no allegations of the applicant having assaulted the informant with the intention to commit murder. Furthermore, they emphasized that nothing was seized, or remained to be seized, at the applicant’s instance, suggesting his continued detention was unnecessary for the investigation.

The heart of the court’s order lies in its precise dissection of the FIR allegations. Upon perusing the document, the court differentiated the actions of the applicant from those of the other main assailants. The FIR specifically stated that one co-accused assaulted the informant with a knife, and two others strangled him with a rope. In contrast, the role assigned to the applicant and “other accused” was limited to “assaulted by fist blows” to the informant’s friends who tried to intervene. This careful distinction proved decisive. The court concluded that “there are no allegations against applicant having assaulted to informant and caused any injury” that would establish the intent required for attempted murder. The court further noted that the weapon used in the major assaults had already been seized by the police, and significantly, the informant/injured person was “out of danger and discharged from Hospital,” implying that the injuries were not prima facie life-threatening.

In light of these findings—namely, the non-fatal nature of the injuries and the applicant’s less-severe, secondary role—the court determined that the stringent provisions of Section 307 of the IPC were not prima facie attracted to the applicant’s actions, and further detention was not required. The court therefore allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1161 of 2024, releasing Rais Ahmed Abdul Aziz Qureshi on a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/− with one or two sureties in the like amount. The order included standard, necessary conditions to safeguard the trial process: the applicant must attend the Shivaji Nagar Police Station as and when required by notice, provide contact and address details, refrain from intimidating or threatening witnesses, and not leave India without prior court permission. This judgment serves as a robust affirmation that in complex, multi-accused cases, a court must meticulously examine the individual roles of the accused before sanctioning continued pre-trial incarceration.