The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay granted bail to an accused, Rahil Anwar Shaikh, in an attempted murder case, significantly altering its previous stance after the filing of the charge-sheet. The order, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. S. D. Tawshikar on April 10, 2024, allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 887 of 2024, which was the second such application filed by the applicant. Rahil Anwar Shaikh was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 02 of 2024, registered at the M. R. A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, for offenses under Sections 307 (Attempt to murder), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) read with 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case involves a serious allegation stemming from an incident on January 2, 2024, at about 9:30 p.m., where the applicant, Rahil Anwar Shaikh, and his father, Anwar Shaikh (the co-accused), allegedly assaulted the informant and his brother, Hansaraj Ramkumar Yadav (the injured party). The core allegation against the present applicant, Rahil, is that he assaulted Hansaraj by stabbing him in the abdomen with a knife with the intention to kill him. An FIR was registered the following morning against both father and son.
The current application was the applicant’s second attempt to secure pre-trial bail. The Court noted that an earlier application (Criminal Bail Application No. 376 of 2024) had been refused on February 26, 2024, before the charge-sheet was filed. In the previous order, the Court had recognized that the co-accused, the applicant’s father, had been released on bail. However, it specifically denied the applicant relief, stating that the role attributed to Rahil was “quite different” as he was the primary assailant and could not claim parity. The Court had emphasized the grievous injury suffered by Hansaraj and the incomplete investigation as strong prima facie reasons to reject the first bail plea.
However, in addressing the second application, the Court acknowledged a significant change in circumstances: the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet had been filed. While reaffirming that the applicant was indeed the assailant who caused the grievous injury, the Court also noted that the informant had been discharged after due treatment. The most compelling factor for the Court’s change of view was the applicant’s period of detention. Rahil Anwar Shaikh was arrested on January 3, 2024, and had been in judicial custody since then. Considering the severe pendency of Undertrial Prisoner (UTP) cases before the Court, the Judge observed that it would take a “quite long time to commence and conclude the trial.”
Based on the completion of the investigation, the discharge of the injured party, and the unnecessary hardship of extended pre-trial detention, the Court found that the further detention of the applicant was unwarranted. Despite the seriousness of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the potential delay in the trial process tipped the balance in favor of granting liberty.
The Court allowed the bail application, ordering Rahil Anwar Shaikh to be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of Rs. 25,000/- along with one surety in the like amount. The release was subject to strict conditions designed to ensure the integrity of the judicial process: the applicant must not tamper with the prosecution evidence or make any inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses; he is required to furnish his residential address proof and active phone number to the police station; and he must not commit any criminal act while on bail. The order explicitly warned that the breach of any condition would lead to the cancellation of bail. This decision highlights a common judicial practice where the duration of pre-trial detention, especially in cases where the investigation is complete, is weighed against the applicant’s right to liberty, even in severe cases like attempted murder.