The Gujarat High Court has quashed a 2019 criminal case, including charges of attempted murder, against a Surat-based lawyer after surveillance footage verified he was not present at the local court building during the alleged incident.
Justice P M Raval issued the ruling on June 19, accepting a petition filed by advocate Mohammed Bilal Kagazi. The court determined that CCTV evidence directly disproved claims that Kagazi had confronted and threatened the complainant at the Surat District Court.
The First Information Report (FIR), registered in 2019 at the Rander Police Station in Surat, accused Kagazi and several others of criminal conspiracy, attempt to murder, rioting, unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation, and voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons.
Alibi Supported By Surveillance Video
According to the complaint filed by Asaraf Shaikh, the incident took place on December 10, 2019. Shaikh alleged that while he and his friends were waiting in a third-floor corridor of the sessions court around 10:00 a.m. to meet an acquaintance, Kagazi approached them and demanded the withdrawal of a previous criminal case.
Upon learning of the charges, Kagazi immediately petitioned senior police officials, including the Surat Police Commissioner and the case investigator, asserting he was not present at the scene at the time of the alleged encounter. Following high court intervention, investigators retrieved CCTV footage of the area, which confirmed Kagazi was absent from the third-floor passage and balcony during the specified timeframe.
Court Rejects Prosecution Arguments
During the proceedings, Kagazi’s defense counsel, Kashyap Joshi, argued that his client had been falsely implicated by the complainant to prevent him from representing other co-accused individuals.
The prosecution opposed the petition, contending that the conspiracy charges required verification through a full trial. The additional public prosecutor argued that investigators had collected records showing Kagazi was in contact with other accused individuals before the incident occurred.
However, the High Court rejected the prosecution’s objections. Justice Raval noted that while the court generally avoids conducting a preliminary evaluation of evidence at this stage, the verified alibi and a lack of corroborative material made intervention necessary to prevent the wrongful prosecution of an innocent person.
Citing a Supreme Court precedent in the case of Sajal Bose versus State of West Bengal, the court ruled that the verified absence of the accused from the scene of the offense fundamentally undermines the basis of the FIR. The complainant did not appear in court during the hearings despite being served a formal notice.
