Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Khwaja Malang Qureshi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2020

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal

                          :1:               5-5-i-LDVC-ABA-355-20-st-2622-20.odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

[1]      LD/VC/ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 355 OF 2020

Malang Mohiddin Qureshi                           .... Applicant
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra                          .... Respondent

                              --------
                              WITH
[2]      ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2622 OF 2020

Khwaja Malang Qureshi                             .... Applicant
          Versus
The State of Maharashtra                          .... Respondent
                             ______
Mr. Vijendra Kumar Rai a/w. Priti Jaiswal & Iran Sayed, for the
Applicants.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State/Respondent.
                             ______

                                CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

                                DATE   : 21st OCTOBER, 2020.
P.C. :

1.              Both these Applications are disposed of by this

common order as they arise out of the same offence.


2.              The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in

connection with C.R.No.418/2020 registered at Goregaon Police


Deshmane (PS)                                                              1 of 6
                              :2:                  5-5-i-LDVC-ABA-355-20-st-2622-20.odt


Station, Mumbai on 30.6.2020 under Sections 353, 332, 188, 269,

270, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.


3.              Heard Shri Vijendra Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for

the Applicants and Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, learned A.P.P. for the State.


4.              The F.I.R. is lodged by Police Constable Dinkar Lilake.

He has stated that the spread of corona was declared as a

Pandemic        worldwide.         At   the   relevant    time,      the     Police

Commissioner, Mumbai had imposed the restraining orders. On

29.6.2020 at about 10:45 p.m., the first informant and others

remained present on their duty. He was accompanied by Police

Constable Padawi. While they were patrolling in the jurisdiction of

Goregaon police station, it was observed that in room No.4, R/3,

Samata-Mitha Nagar Co.operative Housing Society, Mitha Nagar,

Goregaon (West), the grocery articles were sold from a residential

premises. The informant went there and asked the owner to close

the shop. At that time, the Applicant Khwaja was not wearing a

mask. He was asked to wear a mask. Khwaja refused to wear the

mask and refused to close the shop; and instead, abused the first


Deshmane (PS)                                                                    2 of 6
                            :3:              5-5-i-LDVC-ABA-355-20-st-2622-20.odt


informant. Khwaja pushed the first informant. He snatched the

wooden stick, which the informant was carrying and assaulted the

informant himself. At that time, the other Applicant Malang, who

is father of the Applicant Khwaja, abused him and beat him as

well. The information was given to P.I. Jadhav. He came there. By

that time, both the accused had left the place and thereafter this

F.I.R. was lodged.


5.              Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the

CCTV footage of the incident is available and none of the

Applicants is seen assaulting the informant.           He emphatically

submitted that the Applicant Khwaja was not present at the spot

and he is not seen in the CCTV footage. He submitted that a third

person who was unknown to the Applicants assaulted the first

informant.        He submitted that the Applicant Malang came

subsequently and he was trying to disperse the mob and he was in

fact helping the first informant. He submitted that there was no

shop and the allegations show that the grocery articles were sold

from the residential premises.        He submitted that the CCTV

footage does not show that anybody was buying the articles. He
Deshmane (PS)                                                              3 of 6
                            :4:               5-5-i-LDVC-ABA-355-20-st-2622-20.odt


submitted that the Applicants have made statement on oath that

Khwaja was not present at the spot and Malang has not assaulted

the first informant. He submitted that the statements of alleged

eye witnesses are manipulated          and they have not seen the

incident.


6.              He further submitted that the person who is alleged to

have identified the Applicant Khwaja in the CCTV footage is not

telling truth.


7.              The learned A.P.P. on the other hand relied on the

affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, which mentions that

there are two independent eye witnesses, namely, Master Gaurav

Anand Sawant and Usman Ismail Beg.            Both of them narrated

about the assault made by the Applicants. The CCTV footage was

shown to one of the residents, namely, Tushar Satam. He has

identified both the Applicants in the CCTV footage. She, therefore,

submitted that the offence is serious and such acts have to be

discouraged and should not be condoned. Considering the gravity

of the offence and the assault mounted on a Public Servant


Deshmane (PS)                                                               4 of 6
                             :5:                5-5-i-LDVC-ABA-355-20-st-2622-20.odt


carrying out his duty should be dealt with sternly.


8.              I have considered all these submissions.            From the

affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, it can be seen that there

are independent eye witnesses to the incident and they have

identified both the accused as the assailants. The CCTV footage

was shown to the witness Tushar Satam. He has also identified

both the Applicants. Therefore, at this stage, the submission of the

learned Counsel for the Applicant cannot be taken into account

that the Applicant Khwaja was not present at the spot when the

incident occurred.       The offence is serious.        A Public Servant

carrying out his duty in the interest of society was assaulted and

this fact cannot be tolerated. Therefore, Applicant Khwaja does

not deserve any protection considering the gravity of the offence.


9.              However, considering the much lesser role attributed

to the Applicant Malang and also considering his advanced age of

70 years, I am inclined to grant protection only to him.


10.             Hence, the following order :



Deshmane (PS)                                                                 5 of 6
                                                          :6:             5-5-i-LDVC-ABA-355-20-st-2622-20.odt


                                                               ORDER

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application (Stamp) No.2622/2020 of the Applicant Khwaja Malang Qureshi is rejected.

(ii) LD/VC/Anticipatory Bail Application No.355/2020 of the Applicant Malang Mohiddin Qureshi is allowed. In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No.418/2020 registered with Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant - Malang Mohiddin Qureshi shall not threaten the witnesses and shall not tamper with the investigation.

(iii) The Applicant - Malang Mohiddin Qureshi shall attend the concerned Police Station once a month.

(iv) Applications stands disposed of accordingly. Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) P. Deshmane Date:

2020.10.23 19:47:25 +0530 Deshmane (PS) 6 of 6