IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 540 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 540 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 540 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. 1. Fakre Alam Mohd.Ishtiyak Malik 2. Shri Amjad Haji Mohd.Ansari ...Respondents Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for the State. Mr.Amol Patankar alongwith Mr.S.R. Mithare for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 679 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 679 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 679 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Mohammad Saleem Vali Mohammad Qureshi ...Respondent Ms.R.M. Ghadhvi, APP for the State. Mr.S.V. Marwadi for the Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 772 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 772 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 772 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Shamim @ Gunga Mumtaz Ansari ...Respondent Ms.R.M. Ghadhvi, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 773 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 773 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 773 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. 1. Mh.Hanif Shafi Khan 2. Sohail Abdul Rashid Ansari 3. Iqbal Nabi Shaikh ...Respondents Ms.R.M. Ghadhvi, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 774 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 774 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 774 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. 1. Nadeem Akhtar Shahejaman Ansari 2. Iftekhar Zubair Ahd.Quraishi 3. Shakeel @ Bail Rizwan Ansari 4. Riyaz Ahd.Abdul Hamid Momin ...Respondents Ms.R.M. Ghadhvi, APP for the State. Mr.Amol Patankar i/b. Mr.P.P. Runwal for Respondent No.1. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 775 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 775 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 775 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. 1. Nanhe @ Rafique Fakir Quraishi 2. Iqbal Ahd.Md.Dawood Ansari @ Gazali Baba ...Respondents Ms.A.T. Zaveri, APP for the State. Mr.P.M. Pradhan for Respondent No.1. Mr.Anmol A. Patankar for Respondent No.2. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 777 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 777 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 777 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Taju @ Subhan @ Tajuddin Sher-Ali Qureshi....Respondent Ms.A.T. Zaveri, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 778 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 778 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 778 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. 1. Mh.Qasim Md.Salim Ansari 2. Md.Asim Md.Salim Ansari ...Respondents Ms.A.T. Zaveri, APP for the State. Mr.P.M. Pradhan for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 780 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 780 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 780 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Mh.Naseem Md.Rafique Ansari @ Kallu ...Respondent Ms.A.T. Zaveri, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 781 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 781 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 781 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. 1. Gaffar Ali Shaikh 2. Imtiyaz Shahid Ansari ...Respondents Ms.A.T. Zaveri, APP for the State. Mr.P.M. Pradhan for the Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1125 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1125 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1125 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Mr.Wasiullah Badruzzama Ansari ...Respondent Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1130 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1130 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1130 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. 1. Naushad Mohammed Malbari 2. Bashir Mohammed Malbari ...Respondents Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1139 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1139 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1139 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. 1. Shri Aslam Khan Khalil Khan 2. Shri Mushtaque Musa Shaikh ...Respondents Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. Mr.Subhash Kurse i/b. A.Majeed Memon for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. 1. Ajmal Malik Vinchu 2. Mr.Shafi Ajmal Vinchu ...Respondents Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1144 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1144 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1144 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Shafi Abdul Khalid Bardi ...Respondent Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.P.M. Pradhan for the Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1146 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1146 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1146 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Atik Ahmed Abdul Rahim Ansari ...Respondent Mr.S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.Amol Patankar for the Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1156 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1156 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1156 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Rasheed Ali Mohammad Multani ...Respondent Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr.S.V. Marwadi i/b. Mr.Amol A. Patankar for the Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1159 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1159 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1159 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant V/s. Nasir Husain Riyaz - Ahmed Ansari @ Nasir Wireman ...Respondent Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : APRIL 1, 2008 DATED : APRIL 1, 2008 DATED : APRIL 1, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. These are the applications filed by the prosecution for cancellation of bail granted to these - 6 - applicants. 2. Shri Borulkar, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that an offence was registered initially by the Bhiwandi Police Station in which a large mob had gathered and indulged in the stone throwing and damaged the police station wherein several police officers were injured. To quell the mob, the police had to resort to police firing in which two members of the mob were killed. On the death of these two members in the public, several slogans were given by number of persons and as a result, number of persons started throwing stones which resulted in damaging the public property. They also threw stones on a bus which was standing on the road and attacked it with iron rods. Slogans were also given to take revenge of the death of two members of the public by assaulting the police officers. In the process, two police constables died. Various offences were registered and the separate C.R. numbers were given to these cases. 3. Shri Borulkar, learned Government Pleader - 7 - appearing for the State submitted that the Sessions Court granted bail to all these persons in perfunctory manner without giving reasons and without discussing the role played by each of the accused. He submitted that therefore, the said order was liable to be set aside on that ground and bail which was granted should be cancelled. In support of the said submission, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Puran Vs. Puran Vs. Puran Vs. Rambilas and another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338. Rambilas and another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338. Rambilas and another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 338. He also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. through CBI V/s. Amarmani Tripathi State of U.P. through CBI V/s. Amarmani Tripathi State of U.P. through CBI V/s. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 and judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dular Rai and others V/s. Ram Dular Rai and others V/s. Ram Dular Rai and others V/s. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 12 SCC 352. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 12 SCC 352. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 12 SCC 352. He has submitted a chart in which the name of the accused, the application number, the weapon used, the police and public witnesses who have named the accused, the role of the accused and antecedents have been mentioned. He has taken me through individual applications. 4. Yesterday, I have disposed of nine applications by holding that it is not necessary to cancel the bail - 8 - which is granted to these applicants since they have not taken any active part, even according to the witnesses, in either to attack on the constables or attack on the police station. This, of course, is a prima facie view and the finding which is given only for the purpose of considering whether the case has been made out for cancellation of bail. So far as the remaining applications are concerned, in my view, in case of application No.1144/2007 in respect of accused Shafi Abdul Khalid Bardi, application No.679/2007 in respect of Mohammad Saleem Vali Mohammad Qureshi, application no.775/2007 in respect of Nanhe @ Rafique Fakir Quraishi and Iqbal Ahd. Md.Dawood Ansari @ Gazali Baba, application no.777/2007 in the case of Taju @ Subhan @ Tajuddin Sher-Ali Qureshi and application no.781/2007 in the case of Imtiyaz Shahid Ansari, it appears that the statements have been made by the police and the public in respect of their role in some cases which are registered. Obviously, the Sessions Court ought to have taken into consideration the material on record and after going through the material on record, ought to have given reasons why in his view, the accused was - 9 - entitled to be released on bail. The Sessions Court unfortunately has not taken into consideration the material on record and has released the accused on bail only on the ground that they are not likely to abscond. It is a settled position in law that in view of the various judgments of the Apex Court that the Sessions Court has to record reasons why it feels that bail should be given in cases where offence is punishable by sentence of life or death. Since no reasons have been recorded, the impugned order, therefore, so far as these accused are concerned is liable to be set aside. The matters, therefore, are remanded back. The Sessions Court is directed to decide the applications of these accused for bail afresh on merits and in accordance with law. All contentions raised by the Counsel for the accused and the Government are kept open. These accused who are on bail are continued to be on bail pending the hearing and final disposal of the bail applications by the Sessions Court. With these directions, the said applications are disposed of, accordingly. 5. So far as the application no.772/2007 in respect - 10 - of Shamim @ Gunga Mumtaz Ansari, application no.773/2007 in respect of Md.Hanif Shafi Khan, Iqbal Nabi Shaikh and Sohail Abdul Rasid Ansari, application no.774/2007 in respect of Nadeem Akhtar Shahejaman Ansari, Iftekhar Zubair Ahd. Quraishi, Shakeel @ Bail Rizwan Ansari and Riyaz Ahd. Abdul Hamid Momin, application no.778/2007 in respect of Md.Quasim Md.Salim Ansari and Md.Asim Md.Salim Ansari, application no.780/2007 in respect of Md.Naseem Md.Rafique Ansari @ Kallu, application no.781/2007 in respect of Gaffar Ali Shaikh, application No.1156/2007 in respect of Rasheed Ali Mohammad Multani, application no.540/2007 in respect of Fakre Alam Mohd.Isthiyak Malik and Shri Amjad Haji Mohd.Ansari, application no.1125/2007 in respect of Wasiullah Badruzzama Ansari, application no.1130/2007 in respect of Naushad Mohammed Malbari and Bashir Mohammed Malbari, application No.1139/2007 in respect of Shri Aslam Khan Khalil Khan and Shri Mushtaque Musa Shaikh, application no.1141/2007 in respect of Ajmal Malik Vinchu and Mr.Shafi Ajmal Vinchu, application no.1146/2007 in respect of Atik Ahmed Abdul Rehman Ansari and application no.1159/2007 in respect of Nasir Husain - 11 - Riyaz Ahmed Ansari @ Nasir Wireman, I have perused the chart. So far as these accused are concerned, they were present on the spot. The allegations against them was that either they were instigating the mob or had attended the meeting and were found seen throwing stones on the Police Station or were seen throwing stones on the buses. In my view, no case is made out for cancellation of bail to all these accused and therefore, the applications for cancellation of bail in respect of these accused are dismissed. 6. The Sessions Court shall decide the remanded matters, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight weeks. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)