Bombay High Court
Imran Anwar Kazi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 June, 2022
Bench: R.P. Mohite-Dere, Virendrasingh Gyansingh Bisht
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2022.06.24
CHITNIS 18:03:36 +0530
13-ia.1096.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1096 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.410 OF 2022
Imran Anwar Kazi ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Prashant Pandey a/w Mr. Irfan Unwala, Mr. Darshit Jain, Mr.
Aiqan Z. Memon, Ms. Vidhi Karia and Mr. Ashish Jain, i/b W3Legal
LLP, for the Applicant.
Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. Kaushik Mhatre, for the Respondent No.2.
PSI - Vilas Tambe, Dindoshi Police Station, is present.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
V. G. BISHT, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JUNE 2022
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this interim application, the applicant seeks suspension
of his sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing and final
disposal of the aforesaid appeal.
N. S. Chitnis 1/8
13-ia.1096.2022.doc
3. The applicant alongwith other co-accused vide judgment
and order dated 23rd December 2021 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Sessions Case
No.44 of 2015, has been convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149, 506(2) r/w 149, 143,
144, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable
under Section 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant
alongwith other co-accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year. The applicant alongwith other accused
has also been awarded separate sentences for the other offences. All
the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Perused the papers in particular the statements of the eye-
witnesses i.e. PW12 - Rajesh Jadhav (complainant and eye-witness);
PW15 - Hitesh Trivedi and PW19 - Utkarsha Raikar. It appears from
the evidence of the eye-witnesses that the incident took place on 21 st
October 2014 at about 5:00 to 5:15 p.m. According to PW12 - Rajesh
N. S. Chitnis 2/8
13-ia.1096.2022.doc
Jadhav, he saw a quarrel between accused No.1 - Sohail Ansari,
applicant - Imran Kazi and Shahrukh Sajida on the one hand and their
neighbours, Jayesh Trivedi, Hitesh Trivedi and their mother - Daya
Trivedi, on the other; that when PW12 - Rajesh and his cousin -
Ramesh Jadhav (deceased) went to intervene in the said quarrel, the
accused started asssaulting him (PW12 - Rajesh) and Ramesh
(deceased); that accused No.1 - Sohail rushed to his house and again
returned to the spot of the incident with a sword and assaulted
Ramesh (deceased) with the said sword; that Shahrukh allegedly
assaulted him (PW12 - Rajesh) with a wooden bamboo; that at that
time, accused No.4 - Gullu Sajida came to the spot with a gupti and
pierced the said gupti in the left thigh of Ramesh Jadhav; that, accused
No.2 - Yusuf Ali and the present applicant - Imran held Ramesh
Jadhav; that accused No.1 - Sohail inflicted a blow on the hand of
Daya Trivedi, with a sword; that when he (PW12 - Rajesh) tried to
intervene to save Ramesh (deceased), Shahrukh threatened him; that
after a gap of half a minute, Ramesh was freed, after which Ramesh
fell on the ground. The role ascribed to the applicant is that of holding
N. S. Chitnis 3/8
13-ia.1096.2022.doc
deceased - Ramesh Jadhav. A persual of the evidence of PW19 -
Utkarsha Raikar reveals that the applicant - Imran is alleged to have
held Ramesh's neck; that accused No.2 - Yusuf Ali asked other
accused to kill him, after which accused No.1 - Sohail gave a blow of
sword on Ramesh's chest; that when accused No.1 - Sohail gave
another blow, Ramesh is allegedly raised his hand to save himself
from the said blow, pursuant to which Ramesh received an injury on
his right hand and chin. Thereafter, accused No.4 - Gullu Sajida is
alleged to have pierced an iron gupti on Ramesh's left thigh, which
came out from the anterior side and as there was heavy bleeding,
Ramesh started shouting for help. It is alleged by PW19 - Utkarsha
that when PW 12 - Rajesh came and went towards Ramesh Jadhav, to
help him, accused - Shahrukh who was holding a bamboo stick in his
hand, threatened Rajesh not to interfere or he too would be
assaulted. It is alleged that after the incident, all the accused and
Shahrukh left the spot with weapons in thier hands. As far as PW15 -
Hitesh Trivedi is concerned, he has stated that the incident took place
on 21st October 2014 at about 5:00 to 5:15 p.m. when he was washing
N. S. Chitnis 4/8
13-ia.1096.2022.doc
his bike in front of his house. He has stated that accused No.1 -
Sohail was looking at him angrily, however, he did not pay heed to the
same; that after washing his bike, he returned home, at which time
accused No.1 - Sohail asked him, why he was looking at him and that
nobody would dare to ask him about his behaviour; that accused No.1
- Sohail started abusing him; that on hearing the said abuses his
mother and brother - Jayesh came out of the house; that accused No.1
- Sohail also started abusing them; that thereafter accused No.1 -
Sohail returned to his house and again came to the spot in an auto
rickshaw with an iron rod; that accused No.2 - Yusuf Ali and his son
Shahrukh followed accused No.1 - Sohail; that accused No.1 - Sohail,
accused No.2 - Yusuf Ali and Shahrukh started assaulting him (Hitesh),
his mother and brother - Jayesh; that at that time, the accused No.3
i.e. the present applicant is also stated to be present with them and he
is also alleged to have assaulted them; that as he, his mother and
brother started shouting, PW12 - Rajesh Jadhav came to the spot
and started separating the quarrel, however, the accused also started
assaulting Rajesh Jadhav. Thereafter, accused No.1 - Sohail is alleged
N. S. Chitnis 5/8
13-ia.1096.2022.doc
to have gone to Wali Mohammed chawl and returned to the spot with
a sword; that Ramesh (deceased) who was returning home from his
work place intervened in the quarrel; that accused No.1 - Sohail is
alleged to have given a blow of sword on his (PW15's) mother and as
his mother raised her left hand to rescue herself from the said blow,
she sustained injury on her left palm; that accused No.4 - Gullu came
from behind and that he was having a gupti in his hand; that Ramesh
(deceased) tried to persuade accused No.4 - Gullu and others,
however, accused Nos.1 to 4 and Sharukh went towards Ramesh, held
him, dragged him, after which, accused No.2 - Yusuf pushed Ramesh
agaisnt the wall and pressed him against the wall. The applicant is
alleged to have pressed Ramesh's neck; thereafter, accused No.1 -
Sohail is alleged to have given a blow with his sword on Ramesh's
chest and, thereafter, accused No.4 - Gullu is also alleged to have
pierced a gupti on the left thigh of Ramesh.
5. Prima facie, there are discrepancies in the ocular
evidence of all the 3 eye-witnesses with respect to the role of the
N. S. Chitnis 6/8
13-ia.1096.2022.doc
applicant. Even otherwise, the applicant is not alleged to have been
armed with any weapon nor is he alleged to have assaulted any of the
injured with a weapon. It is not in dispute that the applicant was on
bail, pending trial. The appeal has been admitted by this Court vide
order dated 7th June 2022.
6. Considering the evidence on record, the role attributed to
the applicant and the fact that the applicant was on bail, pending trial,
the application is allowed and the applicant's sentence is suspended
and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of
the aforesaid appeal, on the following terms and conditions :-
ORDER
i) The applicant be released on cash bail in the sum of Rs.
25,000/-, for a period of four weeks;
ii) The applicant shall within the said period of four weeks, furnish
P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with one or two sureties in the
like amount;
N. S. Chitnis 7/8
13-ia.1096.2022.doc
iii) The applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in three
months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till his appeal is
finally disposed of;
iv) The applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of current
address and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or
mobile details, if any, from time to time;
v) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before the
trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court
and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking
cancellation of bail.
. The application is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
V. G. BISHT, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 8/8
