Akhtar Hujjuali Jafri @ Khan v. State Of Maharashtra

Prasad Rajput IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.

OF 2025 Akhtar Hujjuali Jafri @ Khan .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................

 Ms. Ashwini Achari a/w Mr. Taraq Sayed, Advocate for Applicant.  Ms. Shilpa K. Gajare-Dhumal, APP for State.

 PSI - Amol Suryawanshi, Mumbra Police Station, Thane, present. ...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : APRIL 28, 2025 P. C.

:

1.

Heard Ms. Achari, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Gajare-Dhumal, learned APP for State.

2.

Applicant - accused has filed the present Application for regular bail in connection with Crime No. 1207 of 2022 registered with Mumbra Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC").

3.

At the outset, Ms. Achari, learned Advocate for Applicant would draw my attention to the order dated 12.03.2025 and would submit that reference attributed to Accused No.5 in paragraph No.3 of the said order is incorrect and instead of Accused No.5 it should be

read as Accused No.2 being the principal assailant in the present case having used a knife for inflicting a fatal blow on the victim, rather he having inflicted two fatal blows one on his chest and one on the head which led to death of the victim. There are in all total 6 accused persons in the present crime. That apart there was a lady accused called Pakeeza Khan who was also arraigned as an Accused but was granted bail by the trial Court which found no role attributable to her. Case of the prosecution is that on the night of 22.10.2022 accused persons went to the house of victim and raised a dispute asked him for returning the Codeine Phosphate bottles which were in his possession and in view thereof there was an altercation and quarrel between them which led to abuses and the impending assault. 4.

Insofar as prosecution case when read from the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded including that of injured victim appended at page No.123 of the Application, it is seen that Accused No.2 inflicted injury with the knife on the victim injuring him on his chest and head. Insofar as Accused No.3 is concerned it is seen that he used a wooden plank to inflict a blow on the head of victim despite which he has been granted bail by the Court considering his role and also the injury certificate. Insofar as Accused No.5 is concerned it is prima facie seen that he lifted the injured victim and banged him on the ground. He has also been enlarged on bail by the

trial Court. Insofar as Accused No.6 is concerned no specific role has been attributed to him save and except to say that he being a part of the group who committed the assault and therefore he has also been enlarged on bail. Four Accused persons having been enlarged on bail. Accused No.1 is Applicant before me.

5.

Ms. Gajare-Dhumal, learned APP draws my attention to the Section 164 statement recorded by the prosecution appended at page No.84 and 85 which prima facie delineates the aforementioned roles attributed to Accused persons. She would next draw my attention to the medical certificate appended at page No.117 of the Application to argue the gravity of the injuries caused in the present crime as also to page No.123 which is the injury certificate of the injured victim. She would in her usual fairness would argue that the role attributed to present Applicant is that he on instigation of the principal assailant namely Accused No.2 was instrumental in carrying out the assault by inflicting fist and kick blows and was part of the Accused persons who carried out the assault.

6.

Considering the fact that Accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 have already been enlarged on bail and considering the role attributed to them and more importantly role of Accused 3 and 5 prima facie far greater than the present Applicant, and the case of present Applicant being at par with Accused No.6, I find no reason as to why on the

ground of parity the should not be made applicable to present Applicant and therefore he should be released on bail. 7.

In view of the above prima facie observations, Bail Application is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

(ii) Before his actual release from jail, Applicant shall furnish his address where he proposes to reside after his release from jail to the concerned Police Station and also to the trial Court;

(iii) After his release from jail, Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when called for; (iv) Applicant shall attend the trial Court on first Tuesday of every month between 11.00 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. to mark his presence. If the first Tuesday of the said month falls on a holiday and / or non Court working day, the Applicant shall mark presence on the next working day; (v) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the trial Court on all dates unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments,

if he does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of this order;

(vi) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(vii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; and (viii) In case of any infraction of the above conditions and / or two consecutive defaults in marking his attendance before trial Court, it shall attract the provisions of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. i.e. for cancellation of bail. 8.

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made herein above in this order.

9.

Bail Application is allowed and disposed.

P.R. Rajput [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]