Dismissed¶28

Mohd. Farhan Mohd. Nasim Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2024BA/1361/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; FIR 0682/2019, P.S. Wadala Railway, Mumbai; IPC ss. 307, 394, 75 r/w 34; Indian Railways Act; Maharashtra Police Act s. 142; overt act; role writ large; trial ongoing (6 of 23 witnesses examined); trial to be completed within 9 months; renewal of bail if delay not attributable to accused; Manish Pitale, J.; Bombay High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; decided 02.08.2024.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused. Trial Court directed to complete the trial expeditiously and in any case within 9 months; liberty reserved to the applicant to renew the bail prayer if the trial is not completed within that period and the delay is not attributable to him. ¶28

Mohd. Farhan Mohd. Nasim Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arrested in FIR No. 0682 of 2019 (P.S. Wadala Railway, Mumbai) for offences under Sections 307, 394 and 75 read with Section 34 IPC, provisions of the Indian Railways Act, and Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, should be granted bail.

¶19

Court's answer

On perusal of the charge-sheet and annexed documents, the Court found the role of the applicant to be writ large on the material available on record.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Considering the overt act attributed to the applicant, the Court held that no case is made out for granting bail.

¶22

Key takeaways

Since six witnesses were already examined out of the 23 listed and the prosecution may not examine all of them, the trial can be completed within a reasonable period of time.ratio¶27
Alongside dismissal of the bail application, the Trial Court was directed to complete the trial expeditiously and in any case within nine months from the date of the order.ratio¶28
Liberty is reserved to the applicant to renew the prayer for bail if the trial is not completed within the stipulated period and the delay is not attributable to the applicant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application dismissed (Manish Pitale, J., High Court of Bombay, 02.08.2024, BA No. 1361 of 2024). Applicant arrested on 02.04.2019 in FIR No. 0682 of 2019, P.S. Wadala Railway, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 307, 394 and 75 read with Section 34 IPC, provisions of the Indian Railways Act, and Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Perusing the charge-sheet, the Court found the applicant's role writ large on the material on record and, considering the overt act attributed to him, concluded that no case was made out for granting bail. With the trial already begun (six of 23 listed witnesses examined) and likely to be completed within a reasonable time, the Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within nine months; liberty was reserved to the applicant to renew the bail prayer if the trial is not completed in time and the delay is not attributable to him.

¶1

87.BA.1361.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1361 OF 2024

¶4

Mohd. Farhan Mohd. Nasim Khan

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶8

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2024.08.02 18:48:36 +0530

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

 Ms. Akshata Borade, for Applicant.

¶11

¶12

...Respondent

¶13

 Ms. Rutuja A. Ambekar, APP for Respondent.

¶14

¶15

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 02^nd August, 2024.

¶16

P. C. :

¶17

Heard Ms. Akshata Borade, learned counsel for the applicant and

¶18

Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, learned APP for the State.

¶19

The applicant is seeking bail, as he was arrested on 02^nd April, 2019, in connection with First Information Report No.0682 of 2019 (FIR), dated 29^th March, 2019, registered at Police Station Wadala Railway, Mumbai, for the offences under Sections 307, 394 and 75 read with Section 34 of the

¶20

Indian Penal Code (IPC), as also provisions of the Indian Railways Act and Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶21

This Court has perused the charge-sheet and the documents annexed thereto. The role of the applicant is writ large on the basis of the material available on record and considering the overt act attributed to the

¶22

applicant, no case is made out for granting bail.

Page1 of 2

Shrikant Malani

87.BA.1361.2024.doc

Besides, this Court is informed that the trial has already begun and 6 witnesses are already examined.

¶27

The charge-sheet shows that the prosecution has given a list of 23 witnesses. It appears that the prosecution may not examine all the witnesses, thereby indicating that the trial can be completed within a reasonable period of time.

¶28

In view of the above, the application is dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously and in any case within 9 Months from today.

¶29

In the event, the trial is not completed within the stipulated period of time and the delay is not attributable to the applicant, liberty is reserved for the applicant to renew the prayer for bail.

¶30

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶31

Page2 of 2

¶32

Shrikant Malani

Mohd. Farhan Mohd. Nasim Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Farhan Mohd. Nasim Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ali Asgar Pervez Siraji vs State of Maharashtra

Shishir Mangesh Shivapurkar vs State of Maharashtra

Atif Mohd. Harun Mansuri @ Atif Mohd. Haroon Mansuri vs the State of Maharashtra

Hyacinth Uzoigwe vs State of Maharashtra

Mohd Rashid Abdul Shabbir Siddiqui vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Namdeo Ingale vs State of Maharashtra