The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man languishing in jail for the last three years accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 307, 387, 341, 506, Para II, 323 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, while noting that despite the charge-sheet being filed in 2018, charges have not been framed till date and there is no likelihood of the trial being completed soon.
The Apex Court granted him bail with the condition that he should live outside the territorial limits of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and not make any attempt to influence any of the prosecution witnesses.
The plea was filed by one Amin Momin Khan accused of offences punishable under 307 (attempt to murder), 387 (putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion), 341 (punishment for Wrongful Restraint) , 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) Para II, 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) read with 34 Indian Penal Code.
A three-judge bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna heard the counsel for petitioner Sushil Karanjkar and Rahul Chitnis for the State of Maharashtra and observed that the charge-sheet was filed in October 2018, but no progress has been made thereafter.
Petitioner’s counsel says injuries on victim don’t deserve Section 307 IPC, state says he may tamper with evidence
The petitioner’s counsel has submitted before the Court that the injuries inflicted on the victim were not of the nature that can charge the petitioner under Section 307 IPC. The victim was not even admitted in the hospital. He was treated as an OPD patient and discharged.
Chitnis opposed the bail application of petitioner on the ground of criminal antecedents and having apprehension that petitioner might tamper the evidence if he enlarged on bail.
The Apex Court after going through the facts presented and arguments made provided relief to the petitioner and enlarged him on bail subject to the condition that petitioner will live outside the Bombay Municipal Cooperation Area and not make any attempt to approach the victim or victim’s family. “He will not make any attempt to tamper with evidence.”
High Court rejected bail because Khan involved in 11 cases and poses threat to victim, victim’s kin
The present petition is filed by a man seeking bail challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court against the rejection of his bail application.
The petitioner was arrested on August 7, 2018. The High Court has rejected his bail application on the ground that petitioner is involved in 11 criminal cases and threat to the victim and victim’s family.
The prosecution has established the fact before the High Court that petitioner has criminal antecedents and he might become threat to the victims and society at large and this can be clearly seen in the previous conduct of petitioner. For example, the petitioner once enlarged on bail on the demise of his father and he recorded a video saying “Mai Hu Don” “Miya Bhai Miya Bhai” “Mai Hoo Khalnayak” and made it viral on What Apps and You Tube Apps.
Also Read: Madras High Court says debt recovery tribunals’ presiding officers should be vigilant
The Counsel on behalf of the petitioner had submitted before the High Court that petitioner was acquitted in various cases registered against him between 2001 and 2014. He had further argued that petitioner has been implicated falsely in it or another case by the police.
As far as the story of the prosecution is concerned it was alleged by the Vegetable Vendor i.e. “the complainant” that the associates of the petitioner had taken him away by force with an intent to cause him hurt and thereby detained him for extortion. It was alleged that he was detained for extortion and was also assaulted by petitioner and his associates. The injury certificate prima facie, shows that he had suffered a grievous injury, on the left ear.