Allowed

Amir Ansar Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Mar 2024BA/2142/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed with stringent conditions. The High Court, considering the brutality of the assault, the prosecution's 28 witnesses, and the applicant's antecedent, ordered his release on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions including residency restrictions, weekly police reporting, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount, subject to stringent conditions including restricted movement and weekly repo

Amir Ansar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:11874

¶2

PMB 901. BA 2142-23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2142 OF 2023

¶5

AMIR ANSAR SHAIKH ..APPLICANT VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶6

Adv. Nitin Sejpal a/w Adv. Pooja Sejpal a/w Adv. Akshata Desai for the applicant. Smt. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶8

DATE : MARCH 12, 2024.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

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

¶11

2. This is an application for bail in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘IPC’ for short), under Sections 4, 25, 27 of Indian Arms Act and under Sections 37(1)(A), 135 of Maharashtra Police Act registered on 24.07.2020 vide FIR bearing C.R. No.221 of 2020 with Tilak Nagar Police Station.

¶12

3. This Court on the previous occasion on 03.01.2023 allowed the applicant to withdraw the earlier Bail Application

¶13

1/4

¶14

PMB

¶15

BA 2142-23.doc

¶16

No.1325 of 2022 with liberty to file a fresh application after six months, if the trial does not make any progress. I am informed that the charge has been framed in sometime in October 2023 but not a single witness has been examined so far. The prosecution proposes to examine 28 witnesses. The trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon.

¶17

4. Learned APP was at pains to point out the brutality of the assault by the sword on the head of the injured witness. It is submitted that injured witness has not yet recovered from one of the assault. It is further submitted that there is one criminal antecedent against the applicant of the year 2020 bearing C.R. No.43 of 2020 under Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter ‘NDPS Act’ for short).

¶18

5. The applicant was arrested on 24.07.2020. The applicant is now in custody for more than three years and seven months with the possibility of the trial concluding any time soon appearing to be remote. No doubt there are eye witnesses to the incident and even the weapon is recovered from the applicant. However, in the facts and circumstances

¶19

2/4

¶20

PMB

¶21

BA 2142-23.doc

¶22

of the present case I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail but by imposing stringent conditions. The applicant does not appear to be a flight risk.

¶23

6. Learned counsel for the applicant on instructions submits that the applicant is willing to reside outside Mumbai/Mumbai Suburban, Palghar and Thane district till the conclusion of the trial. Statement accepted.

¶24

7. Hence, the following order :-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(a) The application is allowed.

¶27

(b) The applicant-Amir Ansar Shaikh in connection with FIR bearing C.R. No.221 of 2020 registered with Tilak Nagar Police Station shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶28

(c) The applicant shall report to the nearest police station close to his residence while staying outside Mumbai/Mumbai Suburban, Palghar and Thane district, once in a week i.e. every Sunday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till the trial concludes.

¶29

(d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

¶30

3/4

¶31

PMB

¶32

BA 2142-23.doc

¶33

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶34

(e) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

¶35

(f) Except for attending the trial in this case and other criminal cases, the applicant shall not enter the area of Mumbai/Mumbai Suburban, Palghar and Thane district after being released on bail, till the trial concludes.

¶36

(g) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶37

(h) It is also open for the witnesses to make an appropriate application for witness protection to the competent authority/appropriate Court which application shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶38

(i) If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the conditions liberty to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of this bail.

¶39

8. The application is disposed of.

¶40

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶41

4/4

¶42

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/03/2024 17:05:28

Amir Ansar Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Ansar 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

Hemant @Pappu Suresh Kalbhor Vs State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Karbhari Gadakh Vs the State of Maharastra

Manisha Udaykumar Sarvaiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kadar Isak Khan @ Matanwala Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Corteva Crop India Private Limited vs Sunita Goma Chaudhari and Ors.

Kalu @ Dada Shrirang Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.