Allowed

Akhlaq Mustakim Khan @ Bhola v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Apr 2011BA/370/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC, the High Court of Bombay granted bail to the applicant charged with murder. The court observed that the primary evidence was an admission by a third party, not directly implicating the applicant, and that strict reporting conditions would mitigate risk of absconding given the applicant's residence outside Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing a Pashuka Bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with sureties.

Akhlaq Mustakim Khan @ Bhola Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

BA 370-2011

¶2

¶3

Anand

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.370 OF 2011

¶6

Akhlaq Mustakim Khan alias Bhola..Applicant

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶9

Mr.Amin Solkar, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent -
State

¶10

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:29TH APRIL, 2011

¶11

P.C.

¶12

.This is an application for bail by one

¶13

Akhlaq alias Bhola, who is arrested in

¶14

connection with C.R.No.I-39 of 2010 for the

¶15

offence punishable under Sections 302, 397,
109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶16

Code registered with Nhava-Sheva Police
Station whose brother Laddu had committed

¶17

murder of one Shabbir. Investigation is
complete and charge sheet has been filed.

¶18

Except for utterance of Laddu before several
witnesses that the present applicant had

¶19

2 BA 370-2011

¶20

either permitted Laddu to kill Shabbir or had

¶21

told Laddu to kill Shabbir, there is no

¶22

evidence against the present applicant. It
also appears that the present applicant had
asked Shabbir to employ Laddu. One Mohammad

¶23

Rafique Mohammad Yusuf Khan, stated that Laddu
was in fact employed after intervention by the
present applicant and Shabbir's wife. This
could be examined by the learned Trial Judge

¶24

at the trial. So it is not clear why
applicant's detention in custody would be
necessary pending trial. The learned APP

¶25

submits that the applicant is resident of
Uttar Pradesh and therefore, may abscond and
may not be available for trial. This can be
taken care of by imposing stringent
conditions.

¶26

2.In view of this, applicant be released
on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs.
50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in
the aggregate sum of Rs.50,000/- on the

¶27

3 BA 370-2011

¶28

condition that the applicant shall report at
the Nhava-Sheva Police Station initially on
every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
for a period of three months and thereafter,
on the 1st & 3rd Sunday of the month between
10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for a period of next
three months and thereafter, on the 1st Sunday
of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.,
if the trial is still not over, till the trial

¶29

is over.

¶30

3.Criminal Application is disposed of.

Akhlaq Mustakim Khan @ Bhola v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhlaq Mustakim Khan @ Bhola v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Datta Pralhad Dedhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nikhil@ Nikya Ramrao Avghade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sudam Shamrao Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhondiram @ Dhanraj Balaram Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Dattatraya Ganjekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mehandi Hasan Md. Iqbal Idrisi Vs the State of Maharashtra