Allowed

Akash Madan Sah v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Jun 2021BA/1964/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed a bail application filed by Akash Madan Sah, a security guard accused of complicity in a mob lynching. The court noted lack of prosecution evidence implicating the applicant and his clean record, directing his release on executing a bond.

What did the court decide?

The applicant directed to be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/ with one or more sureties in like amount.

Akash Madan Sah Vs the State of Maharashtra — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

25-BA-1964-

¶2

2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1964 OF 2021

¶5

Akash Madan Sah … Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents …

¶6

Ms. Laxmi Raman for the Applicant.

¶7

Mrs. M.M.Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J . (VACATION COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) DATE : 4 th JUNE, 2021.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No.390 of 2020 registered with Santacruz Police Station for the ofences punishable under Sections 302, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶11

2 In an incident of mob lynching, 30 year old

Shivgan 1/5

25-BA-1964-

2021.odt

man was tied to iron pole and beaten to death, who was allegedly tried to steal mobile of one of the labourers working at construction site in Muktanand Park at Santacruz. The alleged incident had taken place in vee hours of 25 th December, 2020. One Tajmul Jamil Ali, Civil Contractor, when intervened, the deceased was untied but he managed to only walk a little and collapsed. Two persons in the vicinity namely, Krishna and Jitesh removed him near his house on hand-cart. Brother of the deceased reported incident whereupon subject ofence came to be registered. In the course of the investigation, eye witnesses Mohammed Shamim Akhtar Makbul Hussain, Anwar Haq, Jaharul H. Rashid, Rajkumar H Sahak, Mukteshwar S. Sahak revealed that they had seen the incident and named assailants but did not notice presence of the applicant and/or or his complicity in the crime. In fact, Rajkumar Sahak, Mukteshwar Sahak, two eye witnesses detailed clear account of the incident and names of the assailants.

Shivgan 2/5

25-BA-1964-

2021.odt

The only witness, relied on by the prosecution to rope in the applicant is that of Tajmul Jamil, civil/labour contractor. However, Tajmul has not touch on incident of mob lynching but would say that applicant, being security guard deputed at Muktanand Park, beaten the deceased, only when, deceased was leaving the garden. Be that as it may, though the incident was video-graphed in mobile of one Abdul Latif Ali, no eforts were made by the prosecution to draw panchanama, to verify applicant’s complicity in the incident of lynching.

¶20

3 Be that as it may, the applicant is in custody since 28 th December, 2020. Investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been fled. There are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. For these reasons, the applicant is directed to be released on bail. Hence, the following order:

Shivgan 3/5

25-BA-1964-

2021.odt

ORDER

4 The applicant in Crime No.390 OF 2020 registered

¶26

with Santacruz Police Station, he shall be released on executing PR bond for the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in like sum.

¶27

5 The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called.

¶28

6 The applicant shall furnish his local and permanent residential address and contact number to the Investigating Ofcer within seven days from the date of his release on bail.

¶29

7 The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to infuence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶30

8 The application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶31

9 It is made clear that observations made here-inabove be construed as expression of opinion for the

Shivgan 4/5

2021.odt

25-BA-1964-

purpose of bail only and the same shall not in any way infuence the trial in other proceedings.

¶36

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶37

Shivgan 5/5

Akash Madan Sah v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Madan Sah v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Rahul Nandkumar Budhawale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Multanchand Harichand Katoch Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khalil Mohammed Sayyed Juwari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Azeez Unni Mohammed @ Ajju Rolex Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sana Sagir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tanveer Hussain Ahmed Siddiqui Vs Union of India and Anr.