Allowed

Umer Ibrahim Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jan 2023BA/315/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 302 and 326 IPC regarding an incident where the applicant had instigated assailants, the single judge held that despite criminal antecedents, bail should be granted after imposing stringent conditions involving bond, reporting, and migration outside Mumbai.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with PR bond of Rs. 25,000/-, monthly reporting, migration from Mumbai, and conditions against tampering with witnesses.

Umer Ibrahim Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Diksha Rane 15. BA 315-21.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by DIKSHA DIKSHA DINESH DINESH RANE RANE Date: 2023.01.09 17:23:35 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.315/2021

¶5

UMER IBRAHIM SAYYED ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶6

Adv. Amrish R. Salunke a/w. Adv. Siddhant B. Kusalkar, Adv. Durgesh D. Sarfare for the applicant. Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for State.

¶7

Mr. Mahesh Gupta i/b. Mr. Pradyumnna Waghmare for the informant.

¶8

PSI Nitin C., Mulund Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : JANUARY 9, 2023.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

¶13

2. This is an application for bail in respect of the First Information Report (FIR) No.174/2019 registered with Mulund Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 326, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘the IPC’ for short).

¶14

3. The date of the incident is April 25, 2019. The applicant was arrested on April 29, 2019. The applicant is in

¶15

1/4

¶16

Diksha Rane 15. BA 315-21.doc

¶17

custody for more than 3 years and 8 months. The investigation is complete. The charge-sheet has been filed.

¶18

4. Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed this application.

¶19

5. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that apart from the fact that the applicant has instigated the assailants, criminal cases are registered against the applicant. It is vehemently urged that the applicant is a threat and may tamper with the witnesses.

¶20

6. There are criminal antecedents reported against the applicant. The criminal antecedents are in nature of the offence alleged against the applicant under Sections 326 and 354 of the IPC in the year 2018. The applicant was 19 years of age when the alleged incident took place. I was reluctant to release the applicant on bail considering the antecedents. However, from the facts disclosed as regards the alleged incident, prima facie, it does not appear that it was pre-planned. The applicant is not the assailant. The role alleged is that he was in the company of the assailants and instigating the other accused. The actual assailants are

¶21

2/4

¶22

Diksha Rane 15. BA 315-21.doc

¶23

accused Suraj Salve and Siddhesh Dagale.

¶24

7. I am informed that the charge has been framed. However, the examination of the witnesses has not so far begun for one reason or the other. Considering the role of the applicant and the applicant now is in custody for more than 3 years and 8 months, with the possibility of the trial taking quite some time, the applicant could be released on bail. There are criminal antecedents reported against the applicant. That by itself is not sufficient to deny the applicant the facility of bail. However, stringent conditions need to be imposed while releasing the applicant on bail.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(a) The application is allowed;

¶27

(b) The applicant – Umer Ibrahim Sayyed in connection with FIR No.174/2019 registered with Mulund Police Station, shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R.bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶28

(c) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station once in a month on every Monday, between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till further orders;

¶29

3/4

¶30

Diksha Rane 15. BA 315-21.doc

¶31

(d) The applicant shall remove himself from Mumbai/ Mumbai Suburban District till the trial is over. He shall not enter Mumbai/Mumbai Suburban District except on the dates fixed by the trial Court and for reporting to the Investigating Officer;

¶32

(e) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The applicant should not tamper with evidence.

¶33

(f) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station and shall keep him updated, if there is any change.

¶34

8. The application is disposed of.

¶35

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶36

4/4

Umer Ibrahim Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umer Ibrahim Sayyed 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

Mujfarali Mo Rais Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Marath Sashidharan Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Yesubai Ramesh Desaikar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shubham Santosh Juwatkar Vs State of Maharashtra

Shivprasad Ramlotawan Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajani Sonu Gauri Vs the State of Maharashtra