The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, has granted regular bail to Sarwar Muksud Khan, who was arrested in connection with a stabbing incident stemming from a monetary dispute. The order, delivered by H.H. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar (C.R. No. 37) on February 8, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 279 of 2024, focused on significant procedural lapses by the prosecution, including the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP), and the simple nature of the injury sustained by the victim. Mr. Khan was booked under serious non-bailable sections, specifically Section 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) and Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 25 of the India Arms Act, registered under C.R. No. 184/2023 at RAK Marg Police Station.
The Allegations and Delay in Arrest
The case originates from an altercation concerning a debt. It was alleged that prior to the incident, Sarwar Muksud Khan visited the informant’s garment shop, demanding the return of money owed to a person named “Guddubhai,” suggesting a motive for the later assault. The core incident, however, occurred on June 1, 2023. The informant and his brother were near their shop when three unknown persons arrived on a Pulsar motorcycle with their faces covered. One assailant alighted and stabbed the informant on his right cheek with a knife. While the informant’s brother rushed to his rescue, the assailant’s attempt to stab him was foiled when the knife got stuck in the bike handle, after which the assailants immediately fled. Crucially, while the incident occurred in June 2023, the applicant, Sarwar Khan, was only arrested nearly six months later, on November 29, 2023. This delay, coupled with the initial registration of the FIR against unknown persons, formed the bedrock of the defense’s argument for false implication.
Judicial Scrutiny of Evidence and Procedure
The Sessions Court’s analysis centered on the lack of a strong prima facie case necessitating continued incarceration. The defense, led by Ld. Adv. Ms. Sartaj Shaikh, emphasized that the initial assailants were described as unknown, and that despite the subsequent arrest of the three accused, the prosecution had failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade. This is a critical procedural requirement, especially when the initial complaint is against unknown individuals, as it serves to substantiate the identity of the arrested persons. The Court explicitly noted in its order that the prosecution had not conducted a TIP, nor was anything to that effect stated in their reply. Furthermore, the defense pointed out a discrepancy in the recovery procedure: the applicant’s personal search was not conducted at the spot of interception in Wadala but was instead carried out later at the police station. This procedural anomaly surrounding the personal search panchnama added a layer of speculation and doubt regarding the alleged recovery of evidence at the applicant’s instance.
Simple Injury and Rejection of Prosecution’s Fear of Abscondance
A factor significantly mitigating the severity of the charge was the nature of the injury. Despite the original charge under Section 326 IPC, which deals with grievous hurt, the Court, upon perusing the injury certificate, observed that the injuries sustained by the informant were simple in nature. While the prosecution, through Ld. APP Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal, strongly opposed the bail citing the applicant’s “abysmal track record,” alleged threat factor in the area, and the apprehension of abscondance or witness tampering, the Court dismissed these as insufficient grounds for denying bail in this specific context. The Sessions Judge determined that the alleged “abysmal track record cannot be sole ground for denial of such relief on bail.” Given the simple nature of the injury and the flawed identification procedure, the Court held that “further incarceration of the applicant/accused is not necessitated”.
Conditions for Release
In allowing the bail application, the Court ensured that the interests of the prosecution were secured by imposing strict conditions. Sarwar Muksud Khan was released on a P. R. bond of ₹30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Key conditions included directives to surrender any passport he might possess and to not leave India without the Court’s permission. Furthermore, to allay fears of tampering and ensure cooperation, the applicant was ordered to attend the RAK Marg Police Station on every Tuesday and Friday between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until further order. The Court made it clear that any breach of these conditions would automatically entail the cancellation of bail forthwith. This judicial decision highlights the principle that when crucial procedural steps like the TIP are missed and the medical evidence contradicts the severity of the initial charge, the court is inclined to favor liberty over continued detention.