Bail Application No.876/2024.
MHCC020055552024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 876 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 177 OF 2024.

1. Sadaan Razamiyan Khan,
…Applicants.

2. Fazal Ahmed Razamiyan Khan.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Wadala T. T. Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.177/2024).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. N. P. Paithane 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 : 06TH APRIL, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicants Sadaan Razamiyan Khan
and
Fazal
Ahmed
Razamiyan
Page 1 of 5
Khan
being
accused
in
Bail Application No.876/2024.
C.R.No.177/2024 registered with Wadala T. T. Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 504 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”), 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.

It is stated that, as on 14.03.2024 at about 11.30 hours
opposite to Royal Hotel, Bhaji Galli, S. P. Road, Antop Hill, Wadala
(East), the brother of informant asked back for the lent amount to the
applicant/accused No.1 and keeping grudge of the same in the mind
applicant/accused No.1 and his brother Gulfam Khan assaulted the
informant and his brother Sadiq. While either of them resisted such
assault co-accused Gulfam took out the knife from his pant pocket
and assaulted the informant on his left cheek and left side of the
head. Further, applicant/accused No.1 also assaulted the informant’s
brother on left side of the chest and neck and also assaulted
informant on left side of his stomach. Thus, offence was registered
under Sections ibid.

3.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated and there is a cross case filed
by the applicant/accused in the present crime, which is also
registered by the respondent agency. Further, it is alleged that, it was
a dispute with regard to conducting business besides each other and
out of such rivalry the incident had occurred. Further, the injured are
out of hospital and also out of danger. Hence, further incarceration is
Page 2 of 5
Bail Application No.876/2024.
not required. Therefore, 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, either party reside in the same locality
and enlargement of the applicant/accused might ventilate for further
such occurrence of incident. It is also stated that, either party have
registered offence against each other and are pending for
investigation.

The
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.

6.

The alleged indictment of the applicant/accused is
pertaining to a dispute of conducting business besides each other as
stated by the applicant/accused themselves. It is also stated that, the
applicant/accused and the other side cropped up with such scuffle
out of business rivalry.

This itself propels for the occurrence of
incident qua the apparent admission thereof. Further, in this regard
the investigating officer present states that, the medical documents
are yet to be obtained. Thus, without ascertaining the factum of
injury it would be inappropriate to confirm gravity and nature of
offence.

Page 3 of 5
Bail Application No.876/2024.
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
has not denied for the occurrence of incident as well as his presence
at the spot. His apparent involvement at this juncture cannot be
negated, more especially when the investigation is at a nascent stage.
Therefore, granting such relief at this juncture will naturally derail
the momentum of investigation, more especially when the medical
documents are awaited. Therefore, I do not find this as a 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.876/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 06.04.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.04.06
16:50:52 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 06.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 06.04.2024.
HHJ signed on : 06.04.2024.

Page 4 of 5
Bail Application No.876/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
06.04.2024
04.50 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
06.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
06.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
06.04.2024
uploaded
Page 5 of 5