Mumbai – A Mumbai Sessions Court, on March 29, 2022, rejected the bail application of Shahnawaz Shahid Qureshi, the primary accused in an attempted murder case, citing his prolonged abscondence for 10 months and medical evidence indicating grievous injuries inflicted on the victim’s vital body parts.

Qureshi, 27, a resident of Bharat Nagar, Mumbai, had sought bail in connection with C.R. No. 164/2021 registered at BKC Police Station. He is accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 307 (Attempt to murder), 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult), and 34 (Common intention), among others.

Allegations of Escalating Violence

According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Rehan Kasim Shaikh on May 2, 2021, the incident stemmed from a late-night cricket-related quarrel between his cousin Amin Sayyed and Shahnawaz Qureshi. The dispute escalated hours later, in the early morning of May 2, 2021, culminating in a scuffle involving Qureshi, his brother Faizan Qureshi, and Salman Qureshi against Amin Sayyed.

The FIR alleges that at around 4:30 AM, Shahnawaz Qureshi suddenly took a “sharp article” from Faizan’s hand, jumped on a motorcycle, abused Amin, and then stabbed him on the bottom portion of the throat and three times under the left armpit. Amin Sayyed was left bleeding and was subsequently rushed to Bhabha Hospital, then transferred to Sion Hospital for treatment.

Defense Claims Self-Defense, Prosecution Cites Abscondence

Qureshi’s counsel, Mr. Tanvir Nizam, argued that his client was entitled to bail as the charge-sheet had already been filed and he was willing to abide by any conditions. He presented a multi-pronged defense, claiming that CCTV footage from the scene did not show a stabbing, that Qureshi was merely trying to de-escalate the situation, and that Amin Sayyed was the initial aggressor, even seen carrying a stone. Mr. Nizam also referenced a “counter crime” (FIR No. 165/2021) which he claimed supported Qureshi’s self-defense narrative and asserted that the doctors’ subsequent medical opinion on the injuries was false. He extensively cited legal principles on the right of private defense under the IPC.

Conversely, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Rashmi Tendulkar, vehemently opposed the bail application. She contended that Qureshi was the main accused with strong evidence against him, particularly highlighting that he had absconded for 10 months after the incident. She argued that releasing him on bail would pose a significant risk of him pressurizing the informant and prosecution witnesses and that there was a high possibility he would abscond again, frustrating the trial.

Court’s Detailed Analysis and Rejection

Additional Sessions Judge M. G. Deshpande thoroughly examined the arguments and the material on record, particularly focusing on the gravity of the offense, the accused’s conduct, and the medical evidence.

1. Abscondence as a Critical Factor: The judge laid significant emphasis on Qureshi’s 10-month abscondence. He noted that this prolonged absence not only made it impossible for the police to recover the weapon used in the crime but also demonstrated a clear intent to evade justice. Qureshi had, in fact, only surrendered after two of his anticipatory bail applications had been rejected. The court concluded that there was “every possibility that, the applicant will abscond if released on bail by frustrating the very object of criminal trial.”
2. Medical Evidence of Grievous Injury: While an initial injury certificate dated June 5, 2021, referred to the injuries as simple, the Investigating Officer, due to Qureshi’s abscondence, sought a second medical opinion from treating doctors. This re-evaluation was crucial. The second opinion stated: “Injury present over left side of neck is inflicted by sharp cutting weapon, which is invariably a dangerous weapon… Dimensions of incised injury is apparently bigger and is present over vital structures of the neck (Carotid, Jugular vein etc.).” It concluded: “Said injury present over left side of neck dangerous and can be considered as grievous in nature.” The judge accepted this opinion for the preliminary bail stage, noting that the injury on the neck, a vital part of the body, prima facie indicated an offense under Section 307 IPC.
3. Scope of Bail Inquiry: Judge Deshpande clarified that detailed examination of CCTV footage, intricate arguments on self-defense, or the veracity of the counter-FIR were matters to be “dealt with at the trial on the basis of evidence,” not at the preliminary bail stage under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
4. Intent for Attempted Murder: The court found that the statements of prosecution witnesses, indicating Qureshi’s use of a sharp weapon to stab the victim on the neck and under the left armpit with “three successive blows,” prima facie demonstrated his “intention coupled with knowledge of consequences of his act.”

In conclusion, Judge Deshpande stated that Qureshi had failed to establish a strong prima facie case for bail. Considering the serious nature of the offense and the accused’s conduct, the court found it was “not a fit case to grant bail.”

The bail application was accordingly rejected.