HC grants bail to Kenyan national who went on stabbing spree in SoBo
A single judge bench of justice Milind Jadhav issued the order on May 9, which was released last week, granting bail to the accused, Geoffrey Kama Julius Kimuyu also known as John, primarily on the ground that his trial is not likely to commence and conclude in the near future.
Justice Jadhav noted that John had spent around three years behind bars as an under-trial prisoner. 'There is no possibility of the trial commencing or concluding in the near foreseeable future. Detaining an under-trial prisoner for such an extended period violates his fundamental right to speedy trial,' the court said while ordering John's release on furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 and one or two sureties in the same amount.
The alleged incident took place on June 1, 2022, when John approached a passerby and allegedly attacked him on his shoulder with a knife for no reason. According to the police, as the passerby tried to save himself, John again attacked him on his face, causing a stabbing wound on his nose. The police said he also stabbed seven others within the limits of Azad Maidan police station.
The police booked John under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (causing simple hurt) and 326 (causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 37(1) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and arrested him soon after the incident.
John had approached the high court earlier this year for bail, claiming that there were material inconsistencies in witness statements and that he was undergoing treatment for a mental disorder at the time.
The police, on the other hand, opposed the plea, contending that there were several eyewitnesses to the incident, which was heinous, and, if let out on bail, the accused is likely to commit similar offences.
The argument, however, did not weigh with the court, which upheld his right to speedy trial and granted him bail.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Man wanted for aunts murder over property dispute held after 13 years
Agency: New Delhi, Aug 11 (PTI) A man accused of burning his aunt to death in 2012 over a property dispute has been arrested after evading capture for over 13 years, police said on Monday. The accused, identified as Sonu alias Ajay (43), was declared a proclaimed offender on July 9, 2012, in connection with a case registered at Welcome police station. The incident took place on January 29, 2012, when Sonu, along with three others—Ashok, Heera, and Babloo—poured kerosene on his aunt, Rajrani alias Rajkumari, the second wife of his uncle Bharat, and set her on fire. She later succumbed to her injuries, police said. A case was registered on February 8, 2012, under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. While Ashok Kumar and Heera Devi were arrested, Sonu and Babloo remained on the run. Sonu, described as illiterate and from a criminal background, was arrested following a thorough investigation. Further legal proceedings are underway. PTI SSJ HIG HIG view comments First Published: August 11, 2025, 22:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Punjab and Haryana High Court directs acceptance of downloaded bail order attested by advocate
In a significant direction aimed at cutting down delays in releasing those granted bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered that downloaded copies of bail or suspension-of-sentence orders from its official website, attested by an advocate, can be accepted in lieu of certified copies. A bench of Justices Anoop Chitkara and Mandeep Pannu said this step was necessary 'to ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay'. The court added, 'Whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor… the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.' If the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, 'such an officer can also verify it and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds,' the bench directed. The order also states that there would be 'no need for a certified copy' for furnishing bonds and that any advocate for the convict can attest a downloaded copy as a true copy after retrieving it along with the case status from the court's website. The ruling was delivered while allowing the application of Amit Rana alias Meeta, convicted in a 2018 Gurgaon kidnapping case, seeking the suspension of his sentence. Rana was convicted under sections 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 307 (attempt to murder), 397 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), and 482 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court in December 2019 sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life for kidnapping for ransom, 10 years for attempt to murder, and shorter concurrent terms under other provisions. His appeal was admitted in January 2020, and a division bench then stayed the recovery of the fine during its pendency. According to the custody certificate dated August 2, 2025, Rana has served eight years, three months, and five days in this case, including remission. In the early hours of May 17, 2018, the Gurgaon police received a control room message about the kidnapping of one Pardeep Singh and a ransom demand near Ghora Chowk. The complainant, Upendra, an accountant from Uttarakhand residing in Sector 10, Gurgaon, told the police that he had received calls from the number of his nephew, Pardeep, demanding Rs 50,000 and threatening to kill him. Upendra managed to arrange Rs 20,000 and handed it over at Hero Honda Chowk, after which the kidnappers claimed they had fired a shot at Pardeep's foot and abandoned him near Bhondsi Jail Road. The police later found Pardeep near Sector 62 in an injured condition and took him to hospital. During the investigation, Rana and a co-accused, Ajay, were arrested in another Arms Act case and allegedly confessed to their role in the kidnapping. The police said Rs 8,000 was recovered from Rana and Rs 7,500 from Ajay following their disclosure statements. While acknowledging that the ransom demand made the case fall within the scope of Section 364 A, the bench noted that there was 'the absence of involvement or any pressure on the Government or any foreign State or inter-governmental organization, and in this context, on any other person'. The judges made it clear they were not deciding the applicability of the section at this stage. 'This Court does not intend to say that Section 364-A is not prima facie attracted because it would be at the time of hearing the appeal, when such stage would arise,' the court said. Suspending the sentence 'till further orders,' the court observed, 'The amount of ransom being Rs. 50,000/-, coupled with the gunshot injury on leg (right thigh), which is a non-vital part of the body, and the applicant's custody of more than 8 years 03 months with remission… are sufficient grounds to suspend the sentence.' The court ordered that Rana be released on bail if not required in any other case, upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the competent court. The surety must be capable of producing him in court if he fails to appear, the court added.
NDTV
5 hours ago
- NDTV
Bengaluru Man Chased By Dogs, Ends Up Being Suspected Of Theft
A man working as a software engineer in Bengaluru was chased by dogs late at night in HSR Layout, only to be accused of being a thief. In a Reddit post, the victim said the harrowing episode had left him shaken. "I was in a life-threatening situation with dogs chasing me, but instead of empathy, I got treated like a criminal," he wrote. The techie explained he was walking home at around 11.02 pm, when a group of stray dogs suddenly started chasing him. He ran but was stuck behind a car. He had two choices: to jump over the car or jump the gate of the building behind him. Seeking safety, he jumped over the gate and landed inside a residential compound. Within seconds, three residents, a man in his 60s, his wife and a woman believed to be their daughter, confronted him. He said he immediately apologised and told them that he was being chased by dogs and had no other option but to jump the gate to escape the stray animals. The residents, he said, didn't believe him. "Even if dogs were chasing you, why trespass? We don't care about your situation," the man was told. The techie claimed he showed his documents, including PAN number, Aadhaar number, address, and even his Darwinbox profile to prove that he was a software engineer working in Bengaluru. The man claimed the residents didn't believe him, accused him of theft and confiscated his phone. They said they would return it the next morning, only after verifying his story. He said he repeatedly asked them to check the CCTV footage to verify his story or call the police. "They refused both. For almost 30 minutes, they kept my phone while I stood there feeling completely helpless," he wrote, adding, "Finally, they called their neighbour to check the CCTV. The neighbour confirmed my story, and only then did the old man return my phone. I thanked the neighbour and left," he mentioned. The man then cited Section 81 and Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that allow individuals to enter private property without permission when escaping immediate danger. He also noted that confiscating his phone without police involvement could be considered wrongful confinement of property under Section 403 of the IPC.
