1
MHCC020023162024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 326 OF 2024
Muzammil @ Jishan Waris Khan
… Applicant/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through of Chunabhatti Police Station
vide C.R. No. 448/2023)
… Respondent/State
Appearance :Ms. Misbaah Solkar, Ld. Advocate for Applicant/Accused.
Mr. Walekar, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 23RD FEBRUARY, 2024
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by applicant/accused under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for releasing
him on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.448/2023 registered
with Chunabhatti police station for the offence punishable under
Sections 307, 326, 341, 323, 504, 506 (2), 109, 212 r/w 34 of the
I.P.C. and r/w Sections 142, 37 (1) (a) r/w Section 135 of Mumbai
Police Act.
2.

The applicant/accused submitted that he is innocent.

and falsely implicated in this crime. Section 307 of IPC is not
2
attracted to present facts of case. Co-accused is released on bail by
this Court. Hence on the ground of parity he is entitled to be
released on bail. The medical evidence does not support the case of
prosecution. The applicant had no intention or knowledge which is
a necessary ingredients as alleged in the initial version of the story
of prosecution. It is submitted that investigation is over and
chargesheet is filed against the accused. Hence, applicant/accused
prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with C.R.
No.448/2023 registered with Chunabhatti police station.
3.

The Investigation officer submitted reply at Exh.02 and
resisted the application on the ground that there were 8 serious
crimes registered against applicant/accused at Chunabhatti police
station. He is habitual offender. The applicant/accused was
externed from Mumbai. But inspite of this fact, he committed this
crime. After committing the crime the accused was trying to flee
away to Gujarat State. If bail is granted to applicant/accused then
he will abscond. If bail is granted to applicant/accused then he may
threaten to prosecution witnesses. Lastly, investigating officer
prayed for rejection of bail application.
4.

Heard
Ld.

Adv.

Ms.

Misbaah
Solkar
for
the
applicant/accused and Ld. APP Walekar for Respondent/State.
5.

On the basis of report lodged by informant namely
Illias Kamil Qureshi, Chunabhatti police station registered C.R.
No.448/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 326,
341, 323, 504, 506 (2), 109, 212 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and r/w
Sections 142, 37 (1) (a) r/w Section 135 of Mumbai Police Act. It is
3
alleged in FIR that on 15.10.2023 at about 12.30 noon the
complainant came at Qureshi Nagar and at that time accused Jishan
Khan stabbed complainant and abused to him and assaulted him by
fist blows. Accused Jishan Khan gave blow by means of blade on
the neck of informant. Accused Sameer also stabbed by knife on the
stomach of informant. Accused Sabir Qureshi inflicted blow by
blade on the back of informant and caused injuries. Accused
persons attempted to kill informant. Hence, he lodged report
against three accused persons at Chunabhatti police station.
6.

Perused contents of application and say filed by
investigating officer. In this case investigation is completed and
charge-sheet has been filed against the accused. I have gone
through the F.I.R. as well as charge-sheet filed on record. It is to be
noted that the name of applicant is mentioned in F.I.R. as accused
No.1. In F.I.R. it is specifically mentioned that on 15.10.2023 all the
accused persons abused to the complainant and assaulted him by
fist blows. The applicant/accused Zishan Khan assaulted informant
by means of razor on his neck and attempted to kill him. The
informant tried to save the blow, but the said blow was hit below
his neck on right shoulder. There are specific allegation in F.I.R. that
the applicant/accused attempted to kill the informant. The copy of
charge-sheet also shows that the weapon i.e. razor was seized from
the applicant/accused. Thus the role of applicant/accused is
specifically described in F.I.R. So also there are statement of witness
namely Gaus Qureshi which corroborates to the version of
informant. Prima facie there is sufficient material on record to show
the involvement of applicant/accused in the said crime. Therefore,
he cannot be granted regular bail. In present case the conduct of
4
applicant/accused itself shows that he was armed with the weapon
and he inflicted blow on the neck of informant by means of razor. It
appears that the applicant/accused has clear intention to commit
murder of informant and therefore he was armed with the weapon
i.e. razor and he attempted to kill him. Considering these aspect I
am of the view that the applicant/accused is not entitled for grant
of regular bail.
7.

In
FIR
there
is
specific
allegation
against
applicant/accused that applicant/accused inflicted blow by means
of blade on complainant’s neck and caused injury. There are specific
allegation against accused persons that they used deadly weapon
and inflicted blows on complainant’s body and caused injuries and
attempted to kill him. There are also allegation that people who
were passing from the road came forward to help informant but the
accused persons shown the weapons to them and they gave threat
to them that they will kill them. So also there are statements of
witnesses namely Gaus Qureshi and Suykant Kharat which
corroborates to the statement of informant. Thus prima facie there
is sufficient material on record to show the involvement of
applicant/accused in the crime. Therefore, he cannot be granted
regular bail.
8.

In present case offence under Sections 307, 326, 341,
323,504, 506(2), 109, 212 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 142, 37(1)
(A), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act is registered against
applicant/accused and other accused. Alleged offence is serious in
nature.

In
FIR
specific
role
has
been
attributed
to
the
applicant/accused. Considering the nature of the offence and
5
gravity it will not be proper to grant bail to the applicant/accused.
Moreover, as per the say of investigating officer, there are eight
crimes registered against applicant/accused at Chunabhatti police
station. The applicant/accused is having criminal antecedents. He
will commit similar type of offence if released on bail. There is also
possibility that he will put pressure on witnesses and hence, he
cannot be granted bail.
9.

It is argued by Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused that
the other accused namely Sameer Qureshi and Nasir Qureshi were
granted bail by this Court. Hence it is submitted that on the ground
of parity the applicant/accused be granted bail. On the contrary Ld.
APP
submitted
that
the
bail
cannot
be
granted
to
the
applicant/accused on the ground of parity. Hence, he submitted
that bail application be rejected. However, the role of present
applicant/accused and role of other accused namely Sameer
Qureshi and Nasir Qureshi is not similar. The weapon was not
recovered at the instance of accused Sameer Qureshi and the injury
certificate was not showing injury on stomach. Therefore the bail
was granted to accused Sameer Qureshi. The name of Nasir Qureshi
was not mentioned
in FIR. His name was disclosed in
supplementary statement and his role was only to the extent of
giving fist blows. He has not used any weapon. Therefore, the bail
was granted to Nasir Qureshi. However, the applicant/accused has
used deadly weapon for assaulting to informant. In my view, the
role of applicant/accused and role of other accused Nasir Qureshi
and Sameer Qureshi are not similar. Therefore, the principal of
parity would not be applicable to the present applicant/accused.

6
10.

Considering the nature of offence and role played by
applicant in crime, I am of the view that the applicant/accused
cannot be granted regular bail. Hence, application is liable to be
rejected. Therefore, I proceed to pass following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No. 326 of 2024 stands rejected.

2.

Order accordingly.

Date : 23.02.2024
Dictated on
: 23/02/2024
Transcribed on : 27/02/2024
HHJ signed on : 29/02/2024
[A.S. SALGAR]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
(C.R. No.24)
7
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
29/02/2024
Upload Time
4.50 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
PRAJWALA V. PHODKAR
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24)
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 23/02/2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 28/02/2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 29/02/2024
on