Dismissed

Rehman Ramzan Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Oct 2023BA/2321/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the second bail application by the applicant, rejecting the ground of parity. The court held that CCTV footage showed the applicant's direct involvement in the assault, distinguishing his role from the co-accused, and affirmed that the previous application's withdrawal fate applies again.

What did the court decide?

The criminal bail application was dismissed.

Rehman Ramzan Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/3 24 BA 2321-23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2321 OF 2023

¶3

Rehman Ramzan Shaikh .. Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶6

Mr. Ramnik Pawar i/b Ms.Samiksha Pawar for the applicant. Mr.S.R. Agarkar, APP for the State. PSI S.D. Patil from Shivaji Nagar police station.

¶7

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 17^th OCTOBER, 2023

¶8

P.C:-

¶9

1 This is the second Bail Application filed on the ground of parity and it is sought to be canvassed by Mr.Pawar that the co-accused Razzak @ Aman Hussain Ramzan Shaikh is released on bail by this Court on 21/07/2023.

¶10

2 When in the first round, the Bail Application was permitted to be withdrawn and was disposed off i.e. 10/10/2022, reference was made to the CCTV Footage which reflected the involvement of the applicant in connection with the crime.

¶11

For the ground of parity, it is imperative that the coaccused must have been attributed a similar role but on perusal of

¶12

Tilak

¶13

2/3 24 BA 2321-23.doc

¶14

the order dated 21/7/2023, Justice Anuja Prabhudesai who was dealing with the application has specifically recorded in para 6.

¶15

“6 It is to be noted that as on the date of incident the applicant was only 19 years of age. The role attributed to him is that he was present at the place of incident. He was neither armed with any weapon, nor he had inflicted any injury on the deceased or on any other person. In fact, no overt act has been attributed to this applicant. He is in custody since 28/4/2020. It is stated that till date charge has not been framed. Considering the large pendency, there is no possibility of the trial being concluding in the near future.”

¶16

3 Hence, I fail to understand how parity would apply to the present applicant who is attributed a direct role in assaulting the injured as well as the deceased. For the sake of the satisfaction of the learned counsel, I have also perused the CCTV footage and though prima facie, it is not very clear as to what weapon he was holding or whether he was holding any weapon, his assault on the deceased is evident.

¶17

The aforesaid offence is committed with greatest brutality and though the juveniles were aggressive in the assault, since the applicant is seen in the footage, and he assaulted the complainant/injured, the learned counsel Mr.Pawar make a feeble attempt to submit that he was he was defending himself, I do not find substance in the argument specifically looking into the CCTV Footage. In any way, he is charged u/s.143, 145, 149 IPC and hence, once his presence is established, he will take the consequences of the acts which has resulted into death. Hence, I

¶18

Tilak

¶19

3/3 24 BA 2321-23.doc

¶20

am not inclined to extend the benefit of parity as claimed by Mr.Pawar and since on earlier application on being heard on merits and on expressing disinclination, it was permitted to be withdrawn, the present application must also meet same fate.

¶21

Application is dismissed.

¶22

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶23

Tilak

Rehman Ramzan Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehman Ramzan Shaikh v. 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

Bilal Changesh Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

Bhavesh Gangaram Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra

Brahmanand Rajmani Pandey Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Akshaet Vijaykumar Goyal vs Pallavi Mohit Pradhan

Krishna Kashinath Shelar vs Sudhanshu Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.

Amit Ramchandra Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.