Bombay High Court
Saif Fareed Sayyed vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:31629
2.1677.23 ba.docx
Iresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1677 OF 2023
Saif Fareed Sayyed .....Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2788 OF 2025
Asma Bablu Wasim Sayyed ....Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Saif Fareed Sayyed .....Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w Ms. Vidya Lahamate a/w Mr. Sumit
Sharma a/w Ms. Neha Balani for the applicant
Mr. Mohd. Moin Khan for the applicant in IA 2788/2025
Mr. A. S. Gawai, APP for the State
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 28th JULY 2025
ORDER:
1. By this application, accused no. 1 seeks his enlargement on
Digitally
signed by
IRESH
IRESH MASHAL
MASHAL Date:
21:20:45
+0530
2.1677.23 ba.docx
regular bail. The applicant was arrested on 2 nd June 2020 in
connection with C.R. No. 709 of 2020 registered with Kondhwa
Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under Sections 302,
120B, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(25) of
The Arms Act, 1959 and Section 37(1) read with 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act. The incident occurred on June 1, 2020.
The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused
no. 2, against whom the same role is attributed, and the same
material is relied upon by the prosecution, is granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 13th March 2025. She, therefore, submits
that apart from other grounds, the applicant is entitled to be
released on bail on the ground of parity. She further submits that
the applicant has been incarcerated for more than five years, and
although the trial has commenced, it is unlikely to be completed in
the near future, as the prosecution has proposed examining 34
witnesses. She submits that, at present, only two witnesses have
been examined.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, though the
2.1677.23 ba.docx
prosecution has relied upon two eyewitnesses, there is a
discrepancy in the first informant's statement and the
supplementary statement. She submits that in the main statement
dated 1st June 2020, the first informant stated that Saif Sayyed
and his brother, Fareed Sayyed, assaulted the deceased. She
submits that in the supplementary statement, the first informant
stated that Fareed is the father of Saif and Tausif, and by mistake,
he had taken the name of Fareed instead of Tausif's name. She
further submits that, except for the two statements, no other
material is seen against the applicant. She submits that in view of
the discrepancy in the statement of the eyewitness, the applicant's
role in the incident is doubtful. She further submits that the
applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the grounds of
long incarceration and parity.
4. Learned APP submits that in addition to the statement of the
first informant and his supplementary statement, he relies upon
the statement of the son of the deceased, who was 13 years old
on the date of the incident. Learned APP submits that even in the
statement of the son of the deceased, he has stated that Saif
2.1677.23 ba.docx
Sayyed and his brother Fareed Sayyed had assaulted the
deceased. Learned APP also relies upon statements of Shadab
Ansari and Sohail Usman Khan, who also stated that they had
seen the incident, and they saw two unknown persons assaulting
the deceased. Learned APP, therefore, submits that considering
the direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses against this
applicant, the ground of parity would not apply.
5. The deceased's wife has sought to intervene by filing an
intervention application. Learned counsel for the intervener
submits that the ground of parity would not be applicable as the
antecedents of the co-accused no. 2, who is granted bail, were
suppressed from the Court. He points out that F.I.R. No. 0165 of
2018 is pending against the co-accused no. 2. To support his
submissions, learned counsel for the intervener relies upon the
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Phulmai Tamang
@ Neha Vs. State of NCT Delhi1, Judgment of Himachal Pradesh
High Court in the case of Keshav Ram Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh2 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
1 Bail Appln. 1395/2025 and Crl. M.A. 10870/2025
2 AIROnline 2023 HP 1654
2.1677.23 ba.docx
case of Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 3. Learned counsel for
the intervener submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
that the criminal history of the applicant is required to be disclosed
by the applicant. In the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex
Court it was held that since the petitioner had suppressed the
material facts with regard to his involvement in criminal cases, he
would not be entitled to discretionary relief of bail. Learned
counsel for the intervener therefore, submits that even in the
present case, since the criminal antecedent of co-accused no. 2
was suppressed in the Bail Application No. 17 of 2025; the
present applicant would not be entitled to claim parity on the
ground that co-accused no. 2 is granted bail.
6. Learned counsel for the intervener further points out that the
order passed by the Trial Court, in which the Court directed the
accused to secure the presence of their advocate, because
repeated adjournments were taken on behalf of the accused. He,
therefore, submits that by seeking an order of bail, the accused
are deliberately prolonging the trial. He submits that this Court has
directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within the time-bound
3 Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1400/2025
2.1677.23 ba.docx
schedule. He, therefore, submits that considering the conduct of
the applicant and co-accused no. 2, the applicant may not be
released on bail.
7. I have carefully perused the statements and other material
relied upon by the learned APP. Although direct evidence in the
form of eyewitnesses has been relied upon, a discrepancy exists
between the first informant's initial statement and his
supplementary statement. In the statement of the son of the
deceased, he has stated that Saif and his brother, Fareed, had
assaulted the deceased. The other two eyewitnesses relied upon
by the prosecution are not known to the deceased and the
accused. Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted to
identify the present applicant. Considering the discrepancies in
the statements of eyewitnesses regarding naming the persons
who had assaulted the deceased, the involvement of the applicant
appears to be doubtful. Except for the statements, there is no
other material relied upon by the prosecution.
8. There is no dispute that the allegations against the applicant
and the role attributed to this applicant are the same as that of co-
2.1677.23 ba.docx
accused no. 2, who is granted bail by this Court. On the objection
of criminal antecedent against co-accused no. 2, there is no
dispute that F.I.R. lodged against co-accused no. 2, all allegations
are bailable offences. Hence, the criminal antecedent against co-
accused no. 2, cannot be accepted as objection to apply the
principle of parity.
9. Learned APP has relied upon the recovery of clothes of the
present applicant and contended that the blood stains found on
the applicant's clothes are of the deceased. However, there is no
chemical analysis report on record to support this allegation.
Another objection regarding the adjournments taken on behalf of
the accused due to the absence of an advocate cannot be
considered as a ground to refuse bail, in view of the insufficient
material against the applicant, long incarceration and the principle
of parity. In the present case, admittedly, there is no criminal
antecedent against the applicant. Hence, the observations by the
Hon'ble Apex Court would not apply against the applicant.
10. In the decision of the Delhi High Court and the Himachal
Pradesh High Court, it is observed that to avail the ground of
2.1677.23 ba.docx
delay in the trial, to seek enlargement on bail, the applicant has to
place on record the order sheets to rule out the possibility that the
matter is being adjourned at the request of the applicant himself.
In the present case, one order is placed on record by the
Intervenor. By the said order, the accused had sought time to
challenge the order rejecting the prayer seeking directions to
supply CDRs. The trial court granted time; however, it directed the
accused to secure the presence of their advocate on every
Tuesday and Wednesday of the week, as the trial is to be decided
within a time-bound frame. The trial court has issued following
directions:
5. In view of above, next schedule date is fixed on
01/07/2025. Accused are hereby directed to secure
presence of their Advocate before the Court at 11.00 am
sharp on every Tuesday and Wednesday of a week till
conclusion of trial with direction of them take the note of
order.
11. An advocate engaged by a litigant is not his servant or
mouthpiece. An advocate is first an officer of the court. Such
directions issued to a litigant to secure the presence of the
advocate offends the dignity of the legal profession. The court can
2.1677.23 ba.docx
always request the advocate to remain present and co-operate for
early disposal. When such a request is made, the advocate as an
officer of the court, is bound to respect the same.
12. In the present case, in the absence of any material to show
that the trial is prolonged on account of the accused, the applicant
would be entitled to seek bail on the ground of long incarceration.
13. Learned counsel for the intervener submits that the
applicant's wife has threatened the intervener, and a non-
cognizable offence complaint is lodged against her. He submits
that, in the event bail is granted, the applicant be directed not to
enter the Pune District. There is no criminal antecedent so far as
this applicant is concerned. The applicant has been incarcerated
for more than five years. The trial, however, has commenced, and
only two witnesses have been examined so far. The prosecution
proposes to examine a total of 34 witnesses. Hence, the trial is
not likely to be completed in the near future. Thus, the applicant
cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period. The applicant has
therefore made out a case for the grant of bail on the grounds of
insufficient material, long incarceration and the principle of parity.
2.1677.23 ba.docx
14. Learned APP has not placed on record any material to
support any allegation against the applicant or the co-accused
regarding any threats given by them; hence, I see no reason to
impose the condition of any restriction to enter Pune District. I do
not find any substance in the objection raised on behalf of the
intervener that the applicant should be restricted from entering
Pune district on the ground that the applicant's wife had
threatened the intervener.
15. Hence, the application is allowed by passing the following
order.
ORDER
I. The applicant be enlarged on bail in connection
with C.R. No. 709 of 2020 registered with Kondhwa
Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 120B, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, Sections 4(25) of The Arms Act, 1959
and Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.
25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
2.1677.23 ba.docx
II. The applicant shall regularly attend all the dates in
the Trial Court, unless exempted in writing by the Trial
Court.
III. The applicant shall submit particulars of the place
of residence and contact number in the Trial Court,
and the same shall not be changed without the leave
of the Trial Court.
IV. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence
or attempt to influence or contact the complainant,
witnesses, or any person concerned with the case.
V. If there is a breach of any of the aforesaid
conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek
cancellation of the applicant's bail.
16. Application is disposed of in the above terms.
17. The intervenor is heard. Hence, the intervention application
is disposed of.
18. It is clarified that the observations in this order are limited to
2.1677.23 ba.docx
the question of granting bail to the applicant, and the trial shall
proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
