Allowed

Mujya Alias Mujmmil Ramjan Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Nov 2021BA/565/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant accused in a crime involving attempt to murder and offences under the MCOC Act. The Court allowed the application based on prima facie evidence and the fact that investigation was complete with no injury sustained by the informant.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail in Crime No.29 of 2019 executed on his personal bond in Rs.50,000 with one or two sureties in like amount.

Mujya Alias Mujmmil Ramjan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-565-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.565 OF 2021

¶5

MUJYA ALIAS MUJMMIL RAMJAN SHAIKH)...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

)...RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr.Vivek Arote a/w. Mr.Aniket Nikam i/b. Mr.Aashish Satpute,
Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶12

 RESERVED ON : 16th NOVEMBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd NOVEMBER 2021

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1The present application has been moved by the

¶15

applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

¶16

Crime No.29 of 2019 registered with Police Station Islampur,

¶17

Sangli, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 386, 341,

¶18

143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),

¶19

AVK 1/7

¶20

Digitally signed byARTI ARTI VILAS VILAS KHATATE KHATATE Date: 2021.11.23 13:37:26 +0530

¶21

BA-565-2021.doc

¶22

under Section 135 of Maharashtra Police Act and under Sections
3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act (MCOC Act).

¶23

2It is the case of prosecution that the applicant along
with other co-accused were members of organised crime
syndicate. On 15th January 2019, at about 4.00 p.m., in front of
a bakery at Shirala Naka, Islampur, accused no.1 namely Sonam
Shinde along with applicant other co-accused came there and
demanded money from the informant, who is running a beer
shoppe and a multipurpose hall. It is further alleged that all the
accused then started abusing and assaulting the informant. At
this stage, accused Sonam Shinde allegedly took out a sickle
(koyta) and attempted to assault the informant on his neck.
However, informant successfully warded off the blow and
snatched the sickle and in exercise of his right of private defence,
gave a blow on the leg of accused Sonam Shinde and then
managed to free himself and ran away from the spot.

¶24

AVK 2/7

¶25

BA-565-2021.doc

¶26

3Mr.Vivek Arote, learned counsel for the applicant, at
the very outset, claims parity on the ground that the other co-
accused who is named in the First Information Report (FIR), are
released on bail by this Court (Coram : C. V. Bhadang, J.) on 4th
January 2021 and trial Court. According to learned counsel for
the applicant, he is ready to abide by all the conditions which
may be imposed by this Court.

¶27

4Mr.Dedhia, learned APP, on the other hand, opposed
the submissions and contended that ground of parity cannot be
claimed as the earlier accused who was released on bail was not
named in the FIR, whereas the present applicant was specifically
named. The learned APP also invited my attention to the
Affidavit-in-Reply and submitted that there is no merit in the
application and hence the same is liable to be rejected.

¶28

5Perused the investigation papers. I have also gone

¶29

through the order dated 4^th January 2021 passed by this Court (Coram : C.V. Bhadang, J.). Although the learned APP has AVK 3/7

¶30

BA-565-2021.doc

¶31

submitted that the earlier accused namely Nitin Sanjay Palkar
was not named in the FIR and therefore, he came to be released
by this Court is not a correct statement, in as much as, the said
accused namely Nitin Sanjay Palkar was very much named in the
FIR.

¶32

6It may also be noted that the trial Court also granted
bail to Jayesh Mane (A-3), Vaibhav Patil (A-5) and Suraj Babar
(A-6).

¶33

7A bare reading of the FIR would show that the
accused Sonam Shinde in the incident sustained injuries whereas
the informant did not. Later on, the informant gave his
supplementary statement o 19th January 2021 in which he named
the other accused who are already released on bail by this Court
and the trial Court. Although the learned APP has claimed the
antecedents of the present applicant, but the criminal
antecedents are also there to the credit of the other accused who
are released on bail. Prima facie, it appears that the role

¶34

AVK 4/7

¶35

BA-565-2021.doc

¶36

attributed to the present applicant is that he along with co-
accused chased the informant with stones in his hand. As
already pointed out, there was no injury on the person of the
informant and rather, it was accused Sonam Shinde, who
sustained as many as six injuries, although simple in nature. In
my considered opinion, the applicant has made out a case for
bail. Moreover, the investigation is completed and charge-sheet
is filed.

¶37

8In view of above, I pass the following order :

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The application is allowed.

¶40

(ii)Applicant – Mujya alias Mujmmil Ramjan Shaikh shall be

¶41

released on bail in Crime No.29 of 2019 registered with
Police Station Islampur, Sangli, on his executing P.R.Bond in

¶42

the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in like
amount.

¶43

AVK 5/7

¶44

BA-565-2021.doc

¶45

(iii)The applicant shall undertake to attend the trial before the

¶46

learned Special Court.

¶47

(iv)The applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of Police Station Islampur, except for the purposes of attending the trial.

¶48

(v)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
attempt to contact, influence, threaten or coerce the
complainant or any other prosecution witnesses and shall
not indulge in any similar act while on bail.

¶49

(vi)In the event of breach of any of the conditions, the bail is liable to be cancelled.

¶50

(vii)Bail bonds to be furnished before the learned Special Judge.

¶51

(viii)Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by

¶52

the Sheristedar of this Court.

¶53

AVK 6/7

¶54

BA-565-2021.doc

¶55

(ix)It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima

¶56

facie and the trial Court shall decide the case on its own

¶57

merit, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the
observations made in this order.

¶58

(x)The application stands disposed off accordingly.

¶59

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶60

AVK 7/7

Mujya Alias Mujmmil Ramjan Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujya Alias Mujmmil Ramjan Shaikh 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

Atul Babulal Gajarmal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nikhil Ravindra Bamane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhiraj Dhanaji Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Mohan Garad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jaynath Soapan Mansukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mandar Krushnadev Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra