Mumbai, March 6, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to multiple accused in a case involving rioting, assault on public servants, and property damage. Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Tapkire, presiding over Court Room No. 60, allowed the bail applications (Criminal Bail Applications No. 421, 422, and 466 of 2024) of Abdul Rehman Abdulla Kazi, Mohammad Bilal Abdul Rehman Kazi, Farhan Badruddin Shaikh @ Guddu, and Shoeb Sharif Hamdule, citing the lack of specific allegations against each individual and the completion of a substantial part of the investigation.

The accused were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 85 of 2024, registered at Ghatkopar Police Station, for offenses under sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty),¹ 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 341² (wrongful restraint), 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others),³ 141 (unlawful assembly), 143 (punishment for being member of unlawful assembly), 145 (joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse), 147 (punishment for rioting),⁴ and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal⁵ Code (IPC), section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amended) Act, 1932, and sections 37(1), 37(3), and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the prosecution, on February 4, 2024, the Gujarat ATS Squad brought Mufti Salman Azhari to Ghatkopar Police Station. Following this, a large mob of his followers gathered outside the police station, demanding his release. When the police refused, the mob allegedly turned violent, pelting stones at the police and the police station premises. In the ensuing chaos, 20 police personnel were injured. The incident was reportedly captured on video.

Defense Arguments:

The accused, through their respective advocates, argued that their names were not mentioned in the FIR and that there were no specific allegations against them. They claimed they were arrested without reason and that the FIR was filed under pressure from higher authorities. They also argued that no police personnel were seriously injured and that the alleged offenses were not made out against them. They highlighted that they were arrested from their residences and that the investigation was substantially complete.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution strongly opposed the bail applications, arguing that the accused were part of a mob of 900-1000 people who gathered outside the police station and pelted stones, injuring 20 police personnel. They claimed that the accused intentionally obstructed public servants from performing their duties and that the incident was captured on video. They also stated that the investigation was ongoing and that the accused did not deserve bail.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Tapkire, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Lack of Specific Allegations: The court noted that neither the FIR nor the prosecution’s reply contained specific allegations against each individual accused.
• Discrepancies in FIR: The court pointed out discrepancies in the FIR, such as the claim of 900-1000 people being involved, while only 17 were initially named and only 21 arrested.
• Recovery of Evidence: The court observed that only 16 small stones and two pairs of footwear were recovered from the scene, despite allegations of widespread stone pelting.
• Progress of Investigation: The court acknowledged that substantial material facts and injury certificates were collected, and that the main task remaining was to identify other members of the mob.
• Video Evidence: The court acknowledged that the arrests were based on video evidence, but noted the lack of clarity regarding the specific roles of each accused.
• Length of Detention: The court considered that the accused had been in custody for a considerable period, and that further custodial detention was not necessary.

Judge Tapkire concluded that, while the attack on public servants was a serious matter, the lack of specific allegations against each accused warranted granting them bail, subject to stringent conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted bail to the accused on the following conditions:

• Each accused must execute a Personal Bond (P.R.) of ₹1,00,000 and furnish one or two solvent sureties of the same amount.
• The accused must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• The accused must report to Ghatkopar Police Station every Wednesday between 11:00 AM and 5:00 PM until the charge sheet is filed.
• The accused must attend all trial dates.
• The accused must not engage in any criminal activity.
• The accused must not leave India without prior court permission.
• The accused must provide their residential address proof and contact numbers to the police.
• The accused must comply with surety requirements before the trial court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• The need for specific allegations against each accused.
• The importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation.
• The balancing of the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
• The use of stringent conditions to ensure the accused will appear for trial.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in ensuring fair treatment of accused persons, even in cases involving serious allegations of rioting and assault.