Bail Application No.1088/2024.
MHCC020068442024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1088 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 186 OF 2024.

Fareen Salim Shaikh Alias Anshi @ Farin Vivek
Shettiyar
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Antop Hill Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.186/2024).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Mangesh M. Deshmukh for the Applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 07TH MAY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Fareen Salim Shaikh Alias
Anshi @ Farin Vivek Shettiyar being accused in C.R.No.186/2024
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.1088/2024.
registered with Antop Hill Police Station for the offences punishable
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to
as, “IPC”) alongwith Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and
Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, seeks bail under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

As on 06.04.2024 at about 5.00 am to 5.45 am while the
informant’s son was at their home near Navtarun Naik Nagar, near
Antop hill church, behind Krishna hotel, Antop hill, Mumbai, some
unknown individual entered their house in order to kill him and
accordingly fired at informant’s son at his stomach and caused injury
and thus initially, the offence was registered under Sections ibid.
During the course of investigation certain accused person were put
under arrest. Accordingly the applicant is apprehended in the present
crime as he is acquainted with the main accused in the present crime.
It has revealed during the course of investigation, that the applicant
has provided the fire weapon to the informant as well as post
occurrence of the incident the said weapon was allegedly kept with
the applicant. The CDR and SDR are already obtained and they speak
in quantum. And also the prosecution has gathered the CCTV footage
and photographs pertaining to the presence of applicant and the
main accused in the hotel. Thus applicant has preferred this
application for grant of bail.

3.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated and cannot be connected in
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.1088/2024.
the present crime.

It is stated that, the applicant/accused is
arraigned merely on the basis of suspicion. There is no mens-rea
propelled in the FIR. No specific role has been attributed to the
applicant/accused and no prima-facie proof has been spelt out.
There are no antecedents to the discredit of the applicant/accused
and
that,
no
witness
has
stated
anything
against
the
applicant/accused. Hence, further incarceration is not necessitated.
Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicant prayed for enlarging the
applicant on bail.
4.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that, the role of the applicant/accused in
prima-facie has been clearly located and that the applicant/accused
in connivance with the co-accused have played a crucial role. It is
pertinent that, the victim, his relatives and the applicants are within
same vicinity and therefore there is every possibility that, the victim
and witnesses might be threatened. Further, it also has revealed that,
the fire arms/weapon used by the co-accused Vivek Shettiyar was
kept with the applicant/accused post occurrence of incident. It also
has been categorically stated that, there are financial transactions
between the applicant and the co-accused. Ld. Prosecutor further
apprehends for abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening
to prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for
rejection of application.

5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for the State.
Perused the application and reply.
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.1088/2024.

6.

On meticulous examination of case record and the
appended documents it reveals that, the applicant/accused is well
connected with the co-accused and the sleuth of respondent agency is
seized with such whatsapp chats.

Furthermore, the investigating
officer states for such evidence including CCTV Footage, CDR, SDR
Locations of the applicant/accused to have matched. So also, the
entire act is done in connivance and therefore, the role of the
applicant/accused at this juncture cannot be considered in isolation,
more especially when it being a bodily offence. It is pertinent that,
the applicant/accused has not denied for the acquaintance with the
co-accused. Also, that the financial transaction had also been located
by the sleuth and investigation to that effect is under progress.
7.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

8.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant it is palpably clear that, the applicant/accused
herself has not denied for the acquaintance with that of the coaccused. It is stated that, the statement of the eye witness is to be
recorded before the Magistrate and enlarging the applicant/accused
would naturally have an impact on the witness. Investigation is at a
nascent stage and granting such relief will naturally derail the
momentum of investigation. Therefore, there is sufficient prima-facie
material against the applicant/accused shown to this Court by
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.1088/2024.
prosecution and therefore, I do not find this as fit case for grant of
bail. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application
deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.1088/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

Dr. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 07.05.2024.

Digitally signed by
Dr. ABHAY AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.05.08
17:24:00 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 07.05.2024.
Transcribed on : 07.05.2024.
HHJ signed on : 08.05.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.1088/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
08.05.2024
05.23 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
07.05.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
08.5.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
08.05.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6