SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Mohammad Khalid Mukhtar Ahmed Shaikh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent 
Criminal Bail Application No. 2246 of 2024, Interim Application Nos. 3057, 4647 of 2024
Decided On : 07-02-2025

Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Mr. Pandit Kasar and Mr. Afaque Shaikh, Advocates for Applicant.
Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Rajendra Rathod a/w. Mr. Umar Dalvi, Mr. Sohail Ahmed, Mr.
Ali Bubere, Mr. Abdullah Maknojia, Mr. Mujtaba Shaikh, Mr.
Zeeshan Sardar, Mr. Dhruv Jain and Mr. Mudassir Ansari, Advocates for Intervenor.
Mr. Ravindra B. Patil, Unit No.2, Bhiwandi Crime Branch present.

The principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is reinforced, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364-A, 384, 385, 386, 387 - Arms Act - Sections 3 and 25 - Application for Regular Bail - Applicant, accused of serious offences, has been in custody for over 4 years with no trial commenced - Allegations of extortion and threats made against the first informant by the Applicant - Court considers the long incarceration and lack of direct evidence against the Applicant, alongside the right to a speedy trial. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 17)

(B) Bail - Principle of bail is that it is the rule and jail is the exception - The court must balance the rights of the accused with the seriousness of the allegations and potential for witness tampering. (Paras 7, 12)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, a politician, is accused of extorting money from a construction business owner under threats of violence and legal obstruction. The first informant alleges a history of intimidation and demands for money. (Paras 3, 3.1, 3.4)

Findings of Court:
The court finds that the Applicant's prolonged incarceration without trial violates his right to a speedy trial and that the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to deny bail. (Paras 17, 18)

Issues: The main issues include the Applicant's long detention without trial, the adequacy of evidence against him, and the potential for witness tampering if released. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence, stating that the Applicant's continued detention is unjustified given the circumstances. (Paras 10, 17)

Result: Bail Application allowed with conditions. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

[MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]

1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Advocate for Applicant, Ms. Yadav, learned APP for State and Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate for Intervenor.

2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking Regular Bail in connection with C.R. No.312 of 2020 registered with Bhiwandi City Police Station for offences under Section 364-A, 384, 385, 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 readwith Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. There are in all five Accused in the matter. Applicant before me is Accused No.1 and has been incarcerated since 25.09.2020 i.e. for 4 years 4 months and 14 days.

3. Briefly stated the aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by first informant Takweem @ Guttu Ajaz Khan. The first informant is engaged in construction business being run under the name Razi Constructions. In the year 2014, the first informant had undertaken redevelopment of one Rangadi Building at Bhiwandi, during which time present Applicant was the Corporator of Bhiwandi Nizampura Municipal Corporation. It is stated by the first informant that Applicant called him to his office and instructed to give him 20% of the profit towards protection money to ensure that the construction work carried out by him was not obstructed. There was an altercation and scuffle between the first informant and Applicant when he refused to pay the money.

3.1. It is stated by first informant that in January 2015 the Officers of the Municipal Corporation visited the construction site and stopped the construction work though he had requisite sanctions and approvals. The first informant learnt that the Applicant through one Javed Naeem Khan lodged a complaint in respect of the said construction work and about 15 to 20 days thereafter, Accused Nos.2 and 3 visited the construction site and told first informant that Applicant will not stall the construction work if he settles the matter with him. First informant refused to meet the Applicant and hence these two Accused once again approached the first informant and told him that they could arrange a meeting with the Applicant. Accordingly first informant met Applicant in Hotel Dariya Sagar and the first informant has alleged that Applicant demanded Rs.4,00,000/- per slab. It is stated that first informant was told that the money would reach the gangsters and in the event he fails to pay the amount, the construction would be embroiled in civil litigation and he would not be able to complete the construction. The first informant has alleged that he was scared as he had already entered into the agreements with the occupants of the building and had to complete the construction within time and therefore agreed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- per slab to Applicant towards protection money and paid the same.

3.2. Next it is stated by first informant that the Applicant used to organize Cricket Tournaments in his constituency and in the year 2015, Applicant compelled the first informant to pay Rs.1,75,000/- for the uniform of cricket teams and in the year 2016, he was made to purchase Hero Honda motor cycle worth Rs.60,000/- which was to be awarded as prize to the best player.

3.3. The first informant has stated that he did not lodge a complaint against the Applicant because of his political position and association with gangsters and also as he learnt that Applicant used to extort money from the builders who started new construction in Bhiwandi and used to file Petitions before the High Court through his associates to stall such constructions.

3.4. Next it is alleged that in the year 2017, Accused No.4 who was brother of present Applicant was released from jail and he came to the construction site to collect the extortion amount and when the complainant refused to pay the money, he showed his mobile having photograph of Munna Bhai Bajrangi who was stated to be a gangster and told him that he had to send the money to Munna Bhai Bajrangi and in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top