Allowed

Saddam Anwar Shaikh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Aug 2024ABA/2143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to applicants apprehending arrest under IPC Sections 326, 323, 504, 506, and 427. The court rejected the grounds for arrest via TIDP under Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., noting the specific allegations did not prima facie attribute the non-bailable offense to the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie release on bail on furnishing Rs.25,000 bond and sureties; condition to cooperate with investigation.

Saddam Anwar Shaikh and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

bipin prithiani

903-aba-2143.24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2143 OF 2024

¶6

Saddam Anwar Shaikh

¶7

Abdul Raheman @ Mustafa Akil Shaikh Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

… Applicants

¶10

… Respondent

¶11

¶12

Mr. Mithilesh Mishra a/w Mr. Shahrukh G. Sayyed i/by Agastya Desai for the Applicants.

¶13

Mr. Balraj B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.

¶14

Ms. Hasina Shaikh, PSI, Kondhwa Police Station, Pune.

¶15

¶16

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 21^st AUGUST 2024

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent-State.

¶19

The applicants have approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 0663 of 2024 dated 8^th June 2024 registered at Kondhwa Police Station, Dist. Pune, for offences under Sections 326, 323, 504, 506 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

¶20

The FIR has been registered on the statement given by the informant, pertaining to an incident dated 7^th June 2024. It is alleged that co-accused Sufiyan accosted the informant and assaulted by way of iron rod, causing injuries and that two

bipin prithiani

903-aba-2143.24.doc

unknown persons also assaulted by way of fists and kicks. The FIR was registered against named co-accused Sufiyan and two unknown persons.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the names of the applicants first featured as wanted accused persons in the second remand application dated 24^th June 2024 moved by the investigating authority before the Magistrate. It is submitted that, at worst, the role attributed to the unknown persons, who are now said to be the applicants, is that they assaulted the informant by way of fists and kicks. The offence under Section 326 of the IPC, which is the only non-bailable offence in the present case, cannot be attributed to the applicants, even if the statement of the informant is to be accepted as a gospel truth.

¶26

The learned APP opposed the present application. But, it was stated that the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents.

¶27

The statement of the informant, leading to registration of the FIR, shows that only co-accused Sufiyan has been specifically named. It is the named co-accused, who has been attributed with the role of having used an iron rod to assault the informant, leading to injuries. It is this act, which is relatable to the offence under Section 326 of the IPC, which is the only offence categorized as non-bailable.

bipin prithiani

903-aba-2143.24.doc

The role attributed to two unknown persons is assault by way of fists and kicks and at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie it can be said that even if the allegations against the unknown persons are to be accepted, the offence under Section 326 of the IPC may not be made out.

¶32

In any case, the names of the applicants have featured for the first time in the second remand application filed by the Investigating Officer. The Sessions Court has obviously erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail application, inter alia, on the ground that the test identification parade is to be conducted, for which custody of the applicants would be necessary. Such a ground is in the teeth of proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which specifically provides that bail cannot be refused on the ground that the accused person is required for being identified by the witnesses during investigation.

¶33

As the applicants are ready to cooperate with the investigation, sufficient grounds are made out for allowing the present application.

¶34

In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms :

¶35

(a) In the event the applicants are arrested in connection with FIR No. 0663 of 2024 dated 8^th June 2024 registered at Kondhwa Police Station, Dist. Pune,

bipin prithiani

903-aba-2143.24.doc

they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- each and one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶40

(b) The applicants shall remain present before the Investigating Officer on 23^rd and 24^th August 2024 between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon and thereafter, as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶41

(c) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses or any other person concerned with the case.

¶42

Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would make the applicants liable to face proceedings for cancellation of anticipatory bail. It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the question of grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants in the present application.

¶43

The application is disposed of.

¶44

MANISH PITALE, J.

¶45

BIPIN DHARMENDERPRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPINDHARMENDER PRITHIANIDate: 2024.08.21 14:41:50+0530

Saddam Anwar Shaikh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Anwar Shaikh and Anr. 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

Sachin S/O Machindra Gore and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Shridhar Arjun Shingate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Ramesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra

Shankar Dashrath Salve vs State of Maharashtra

Rushabh Santosh Jain and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Pravesh Ashok Dubey @ Pawan Kumar @ Ankit Sharma vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.