Mumbai, Maharashtra – The Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, on March 23, 2022, rejected the regular bail application of Mohamed Mustafa Rafik Shaikh, 24, a delivery boy, who is an accused in Crime No. 57 of 2022 registered with Mahim Police Station. Shaikh is facing charges under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The order, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Purushottam B. Jadhav, detailed a violent altercation that occurred on March 2, 2022. According to the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the complainant, around 9:00 p.m., after returning to work, an exchange of “hot words” escalated into a physical assault involving the complainant, Shaikh, and co-accused Swapnil Pawar.

The FIR alleges that both accused began assaulting the first informant. In response, the informant struck them with punches. The situation escalated when co-accused Swapnil Pawar allegedly drew a knife, but it fell to the ground. The first informant then picked up the knife and inflicted blows on Swapnil Pawar’s stomach and shoulder. The informant also reportedly struck Shaikh’s face with the knife. Subsequently, Swapnil Pawar allegedly held the informant, while Mohamed Mustafa Rafik Shaikh (the applicant) assaulted the informant with an iron pipe on his head and back.

Mr. S. A. Shakir, the learned advocate for the applicant, argued that Shaikh had also lodged a cross-FIR (Crime No. 56 of 2022) at the same police station against the first informant (Azam Ali) for an offense under Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the IPC. He contended that while his client’s FIR disclosed an offense under Section 307, it was not registered under that section, implying an inconsistency. Furthermore, Mr. Shakir argued that the FIR in the present case (Crime No. 57/2022) itself did not disclose an offense under Section 307.

However, Judge Jadhav rejected this argument, stating that the FIR specifically alleged that the first informant was assaulted with an iron pipe on his “head and back.” The judge emphasized that the “head is vital part and blow with iron pipe on such vital part shows the intention of the accused to kill the first informant. Therefore, it cannot be said that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.”

Mr. Shakir also highlighted that the first informant in this case had already been released on bail on the same day in the cross-FIR. The court found this submission irrelevant, stating, “I am failed to understand for what purpose, this submission is made. It cannot be said that therefore, the applicant herein is entitled for the bail. This case is to be considered on the grounds taken in this case.” The court noted that while cross-FIRs may exist, the current case must be judged on its own merits based on the allegations at this preliminary stage of investigation.

Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, submitted that Shaikh had a “specific role in the commission of offence,” and one of the weapons used (the iron pipe) was recovered at his instance and appeared in CCTV footage. He stressed the seriousness of the offense and the ongoing nature of the investigation. The APP also expressed concerns about the “possibility of tampering of witnesses and non co-operation of the applicant in the investigation.”

In its concluding remarks, the court acknowledged the seriousness of a Section 307 IPC offense. Considering the allegations in both the main FIR and the cross-FIR, the court opined that “there is every possibility of tampering of witnesses.” Therefore, the application for bail was rejected, deeming Shaikh “not entitled for the bail during investigation.”

The Bail Application No. 622 of 2022 was disposed of accordingly.