Dismissed

Zuber Nasir Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Sept 2014BA/812/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected the bail application of Zuber Nasir Shaikh accused of murder and related charges. Considering the grave injury certificate, framed charges, and commencement of trial with examined witnesses, the court declined bail. It directed the trial court to proceed on a day-to-day basis and expedite the trial within four months.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied. Trial directed to be expedited within four months on a day-to-day basis.

Zuber Nasir Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

10.BA812_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 812 OF 2014

¶5

Zuber Nasir Shaikh … Applicant

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Mahesh Kotian i/b. Mahesh Kotian & Associates, Advocate for the applicant.

¶9

Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 5^th September, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Application is moved for bail, as the applicant/accused is

¶13

facing charges under sections 302, 341, 427, 120B, 143, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, under section 3(25) of the Indian Arms Act, section 142 of Bombay Police Act and under sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of M.C.O.C. Act.

¶14

It is the case of the prosecution that one Parveen Anwar Shaikh has given the report to the police station at Kondhawa Police Station, Pune on 14^th March, 2012 that the applicant/accused and his associates and her family had history of conflict between them and on 13^th March, 2012 when she was going along with her husband in their Santro car at around

¶15

10.30 p.m., suddenly one motorcycle came in between. The

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

10.BA812_2014.doc

¶18

applicant/accused and other co-accused surrounded the car. They all were equipped with weapons and stones. They pulled her husband out of the car. One of the accused fired revolver at point blank range into the husband and he saved himself and fell on the other side, at that time, accused assaulted him brutally. When he was taken to the hospital, he was declared dead.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that though the name of applicant/accused is mentioned in the FIR, the families are having hostile relations. The statement of the complainant is not believable. He further submitted that no role as such is attributed to the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused is innocent and has not committed any offence. He further submitted that other four accused are granted bail. Hence, on the ground of parity, the applicant/accused be released on bail.

¶20

The learned APP opposed the Application for bail. She relied on the injury certificate disclosing that 29 injuries were seen on the body of the deceased. On instructions, she submitted that the charge is framed and two witness are examined by the Sessions Court.

¶21

In view of the FIR, injury certificate and as it is mentioned that the

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

10.BA812_2014.doc

¶24

trial has commenced and two witnesses are examined, I am not inclined to grant bail. However, the trial Court is directed to take the matter on day-to-day basis and preferably to be expedited within four months.

¶25

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶26

3 of 3

Zuber Nasir Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zuber Nasir Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Yogesh Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Ashok Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Madhukarrao Hanse and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijendra Vishwanath Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kashimali Gafforshe Makandar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Ramesh Ippar Vs the State of Maharashtra