Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 821 OF 2025 Geoffrey Kama Julius Kimuyu @ Jhon .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................

 Ms. Kainat Sayed a/w Ms. Deepa Amati, Ms. Sumaiya Khan i/b Ms.

Munira Palanpurwala, Advocates for Applicant.

 Ms. Shilpa K. Gajare - Dhumal, APP for Respondent – State.

 Mr. Karan Sonkawade and Mr. Pritam Varbade, PSI, Azad Maidan Police Station.

......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MAY 07, 2025.

P.C.:

1. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Regular Bail in connection with C.R.No. 549 of 2022 registered with Azad Maidan Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) read with Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Applicant is a resident of Kenya. He is arrested on 01.06.2022 and incarcerated for 2 years 11 months 6 days in prison pending trial.

2. It is prosecution case that on 01.06.2022 while First – Informant was crossing the road Applicant approached him with a knife and attacked on his right shoulder however he once again attacked First – Informant near his eye and stabbed his nose. It is prosecution case that Applicant had stabbed seven other witnesses thereby attempting to commit their murder. Thereafter First – Informant was shifted to the hospital for treatment. Hence the present FIR.

2.1. Ms. Sayed, learned Advocate for Applicant would submit that on perusal of the record it reveals inconsistencies in the witness statements. She would submit that the version narrated by Applicant’s friend Kalpana, differs materially from that of the First Informant On the issue of motive, she would submit that the incident in question first occurred between Applicant and his friend one Kalpana and in the said conversation Applicant pulled out a knife and inflicted knife blows on 5-6 unknown persons who tried to intervene in the spur of the moment. She would submit that prima facie there is no pre-meditation on the part of Applicant and on perusal of chargesheet no case of pre- meditation is made out against the Applicant. She would submit that no weapon (knife) is recovered at the instance of Applicant.

2.2. She would submit that from the prosecution record it is seen that at the time of arrest Applicant was suffering from a mental disorder called ‘psychosis’ as evident from the Mental Status Report dated 06.08.2022 appended at page No. 94 of the Application issued by Regional Mental Hospital, Thane where Applicant underwent a treatment. She would submit that Applicant is incarcerated for 2 years 11 months and 6 days pending trial, investigation is completed, charge-sheet is filed, charge is framed despite which none of the witnesses have been examined till date. Commencement and completion of trial in the near foreseeable future being doubtful she would urge the Court to allow the present Application.

3. Ms. Gajare - Dhumal, learned APP for State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Sayed. She would submit that the crime in question is heinous nature. She would submit that there are eye- witnesses to the alleged incident. She would submit that Applicant inflicted knife blows on vital parts of First – Informant and other witnesses which clearly reflects the intention of Applicant to cause death. She would submit that Applicant cannot claim ignorance of the consequences of his actions, as the weapon used (knife), the intensity of assault, and injury caused all establish that it was not an accidental or minor scuffle but a violent and lethal attack. Considering Applicant’s condition and he suffering from a mental disorder, he can be a threat to the society at large. She would submit that if Applicant is released on bail possibility of he re-offending himself, tampering with evidence, absconding and influencing First – Informant and other