1
MHCC020053582024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 838 OF 2024
1. Mr. Saif Ayub Khan
2. Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Hanif Sayyed
3. Danish Ayyub Qureshi
… Applicants/accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Deonar Police Station vide
C.R. No. 89/2024)
… Respondent/State
Appearance :Mr. Vijay Sahetia, Ld. Advocate for applicants/Accused.
Mr. Sachin Patil, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.S. SALGAR (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2024
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application filed by applicants/accused under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for releasing
them on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.89/2024 registered
with Deonar police station for the offence punishable under Sections
307, 506(2), 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C. and Sections 37
(1) r/w 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

2
2.

Applicants/accused submitted that they are innocent
and have not committed any crime. Applicants/accused submitted
that they have been falsely implicated in this crime. The
investigation of crime is almost completed. There is no recovery
from applicants. They are ready to furnish surety in case. No
purpose will be served by keeping applicants behind bar. The
applicants are ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed
by the court. Hence, applicants/accused persons prayed for grant of
regular bail in connection with C.R. 89/2024 registered with
Deonar. police station.
3.

The Investigation officer submitted reply at Exh.2 and
resisted the application on the ground that offence is serious in
nature. The names of applicants/accused are appearing in F.I.R.
They committed crime in collusion with each other. There is
involvement of applicants/accused in said crime. If bail is granted
to applicants/accused, then they will tamper prosecution witnesses.
Lastly, investigating officer prayed for rejection of bail application.
4.

Heard
Ld.

Adv.

Mr.

Vijay
Sahetia
for
the
applicants/accused and Ld. APP Sachin Patil for Respondent/State.
5.

By this application, applicants prayed for grant of
regular bail. I have gone through F.I.R. In F.I.R. the names of
applicants/accused are mentioned. There are allegations against
applicant/accused No.1 Saif that he assaulted to witness Tushar by
fist blow. There are no allegation that applicant/accused No.1 Saif
assaulted to informant and his brother by any weapon. No any
weapon is used by applicant/accused No.1. His role attributed it to
the extent of assault by fist blow. In my view the role of
3
applicant/accused No.1 is limited. Nothing has been recovered at
the
instance
of
applicant/accused
No.1.

So
far
as
applicant/accused No.1 is concerned, investigation is almost
completed. Hence no purpose will be served by keeping him behind
bar. Hence, applicant/accused No.1 is entitled for release on regular
bail.
6.

So far as applicant/accused No.2 Mohd. Shafi Sayyed is
concerned, there are specific allegation against him in F.I.R. that he
assaulted to informant by means of sword on his head and
informant sustained grievous injury. There are also allegation that
he was moving sword towards witness Tushar and it was hit on
back of witness. Thus role of applicant/accused No.2 is specifically
described in F.I.R. Prima facie there is sufficient material on record
to show his involvement in said crime. He has played active role in
crime. Investigation is in progress. If bail is granted to
applicant/accused No.2 then he will tamper prosecution witnesses.
Hence, he cannot be enlarged on bail.
7.

There are specific allegations against applicant/
accused No.3 that
applicant/accused No.3 Danish Qureshi was
holding weapon in his hand and he assaulted to witness Tushar by
sharp weapon. Thus, there are specific allegations against
applicant/accused No.3 that he assaulted to witness Tushar by
sharp weapon. Thus role of applicant/accused No.3 is specifically
described in F.I.R. Prima facie there is sufficient material on record
to show his involvement in said crime. He has played active role in
crime. Investigation is in progress. If bail is granted to
4
applicant/accused No.3 then he will tamper prosecution witnesses.
Hence, he cannot be enlarged on bail.
8.

In present case alleged offence is serious in nature.

Applicants/accused Nos.2 and 3 were armed with deadly weapons.
If bail is granted to them, then they will commit similar type of
offence. Investigation is in progress. Let the investigation be
completed. Under these circumstances I am of view that applicant
Nos.2 and 3 are not entitled for grant of regular bail.
9.

Considering the nature of offence and role played by
applicant/accused
No.1
in
crime,
I
am
of
view
that
applicant/accused No.1 is entitled to be released on regular bail.
However, applicants/accused Nos.2 and 3 have played active role in
commission of crime. Therefore, they are not entitled for grant of
regular bail. Therefore, the bail application needs to be partly
allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :ORDER
1.

Criminal
Bail
Application
No.838
of
2024
filed
by
applicants/accused persons is partly allowed.
2.

Criminal Bail Application No.838 of 2024 in respect of
applicants/accused No.2 Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Hanif Sayyed
and No.3 Danish Ayyub Qureshi stands rejected.

3.

Applicant/accused No.1 namely Saif Ayub Khan, resident of
Tata Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai, be released on regular bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- along with one or more
sureties in like amount in connection with C.R. No. 89/2024
5
registered with Deonar Police Station for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 506(2), 323, 143, 144, 147,
148, 149 of I.P.C. and Sections 37 (1) r/w 135 of Maharashtra
Police Act on following conditions :-
(a) The applicant/accused No.1 is directed to attend the
concerned police station on every Sunday in between 11:00
a.m. to 01:00 noon till filing of the charge-sheet.
(b) The applicant/accused No.1 is directed not to commit
similar types of offence.
(c) The applicant/accused No.1 and his sureties shall provide
their respective residential addresses, mobile numbers and
email addresses, if any to investigation officer. The
applicant/accused shall intimate any such change in address
or telephone number and Email ID forthwith.
(d) The applicant/accused No.1 should not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade them
from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and
should not tamper with the evidence and prosecution
witnesses.
(e) The applicant/accused No.1 shall not leave India without
prior permission of Sessions Court.
(f) Breach of any conditions by the applicant/accused no.1,
shall result in cancellation of bail.

6
4.

Provisional cash bail of Rs.25,000/- is allowed to the
applicant/accused No.1 for period of 4 weeks to furnish
surety from the date of release.

5.

Bail before Ld. Trial Court.

6.

Criminal Bail Application No.838 of 2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 15.04.2024
Dictated on
: 15.04.2024
Transcribed on : 15.04.2024
Signed on
: 16.04.2024
[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
16.04.2024
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
4.30 p.m.

Prajwala V. Phodkar
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ SHRI. A.S. SALGAR (CR 24)
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 15.04.2024
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 16.04.2024
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 16.04.2024
on