Allowed

Mohd. Asif Niyaz Siddiqui v. the State of Maharasthra

Bombay HC20 Aug 2018BA/244/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving attempted murder and assault. The court held that the applicant did not directly assault the complainant and there was no evidence of organized gang involvement, permitting bail despite the MCOC charges.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more sureties in the like amount, and reporting to police once a month.

Mohd. Asif Niyaz Siddiqui Vs the State of Maharasthra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 49-ba-244.18.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2018

¶4

Mohd. Asif Niyaz Siddiqui … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Ms Anjali Patil i/b Arun K. Rajput for Applicant. Mrs. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State. Mr. Dinesh M. Desai, Asstt.Commissioner of Police, present.

¶6

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 20^th AUGUST, 2018.

¶7

P. C.:

¶8

This is an application for bail in connection with C.R.No.88

¶9

of 2017 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station for the offence under Sections 307, 387, 452, 34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 4, 25 of Arms Act. Subsequently, the provisions of MCOC

¶10

Act were invoked in the present case. On completing investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed and the proceedings are pending

¶11

before the Special Court for MCOC.

1 of 4

Shridhar Sutar

2 49-ba-244.18.doc

In the complaint, lodged on 8^th March, 2017, it is alleged that on 7^th March, 2017 the accused Fakira, his son Mustafa and the applicant had entered into the house of complainant. Mustafa was carrying sword in his hand, whereas the applicant was holding knife. The complainant was assaulted on account of the fact that he had not vacated the premises. The co-accused had tried to give blow on the complainant by sword on his head and neck, which was avoided by the complainant and when he tried to give another blow, shielded it by putting across his hand. As a result he sustained injury. It is also alleged that the applicant had given blow by knife on his back. However, in subsequent statement on 12^th March, 2017 it was alleged that the applicant did not thrust the knife on the back of the complainant, but he merely pointed out the knife. Learned Counsel for the applicant also drew my attention to the injury certificate, which mentions that the complainant had sustained wound on his left hand which is grievous in nature. No injury is shown to have been reflected on the back of the complainant.

¶16

It is submitted that except the aforesaid material, there is no other evidence against the applicant. It is submitted that there are

2 of 4

Shridhar Sutar

3 49-ba-244.18.doc

no criminal antecedents against the applicant. The provisions of MCOC were applied considering the fact that there were 11 cases against the co-accused. However, it could not be pointed out that applicant had participated in the cases which are pending against the co-accused. In the circumstances, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant in the present crime and also in the light of supplementary statement dated 12^th March, 2017 as well as injury certificate, the applicant had prayed for bail.

¶21

Learned APP submitted that the trial has already commenced. The evidence of two witnesses is already recorded and the prosecution proposes to examine about 10 more witnesses. It is undisputed that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid circumstances and in the light of role assigned to the applicant, the applicant can be granted bail. The applicant is in custody from 9^th March, 2017. He did not assault complainant. There is no evidence that he is member of organised gang. He did not participated aby other crime allegedly committed by co-accused. The embargo under the provisions of

3 of 4

Shridhar Sutar

4 49-ba-244.18.doc

MCOC Act would not cause any impediment in grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

(i) Criminal Bail Application No. 244 of 2018 is allowed.

¶29

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R.No. 88 of 2017 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station and in M.C.O.C. Special Case No. 6 of 2017 pending in the special Court for M.C.O.C. cases at Greater Bombay, on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶30

(iii) The applicant shall report the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Deonar Division, Mumbai once in a month on first Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till further orders.

¶31

Criminal application stands disposed of.

¶32

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶33

ShridharMarutirao Digitally signed byShridhar Marutirao SutarDate: 2018.08.24 Sutar 14:57:53 +0530

¶34

4 of 4

¶35

Shridhar Sutar

Mohd. Asif Niyaz Siddiqui v. the State of Maharasthra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Asif Niyaz Siddiqui v. the State of Maharasthra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukeshbhai Balabhai Patel and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mukesh Popatlal Gada Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinit Ramkrishna Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Royston Victor Saldanha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilam Ramesh Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nihal Idris Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra