Allowed

Merraj Tikur Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jul 2019APPA/287/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant of Crime Appellate Appeal No. 929 of 2018. Recognizing identical evidence and a long period of incarceration (approx. 9 years) compared to released co-accused, the Court ordered release on personal bond with conditions regarding address, sureties, and reporting.

What did the court decide?

Relea on personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount, conditional.

Merraj Tikur Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 appa-287.19.docx

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.287 OF 2019 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.929 OF 2018

¶6

Merraj Tikur Shaikh … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Ms. Ragini Ahuja i/b. Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶8

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 23^rd JULY, 2019.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 Accused no.5 whose bail application has been rejected on 24^th August 2012 is before this Court seeking release on parity by placing reliance upon orders dated 14^th August 2018, 24^th January 2019 and 26^th February 2019.

¶12

2 According to the learned counsel for accused no.5 material on record is same.

¶13

3 The learned APP has relied upon order dated 24^th August 2012 rejecting application moved by present accused. He points out that

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

2 appa-287.19.docx

¶16

there in paragraphs 3, this Court has considered evidence of PW1 and PW3 and found that their evidence supported the case of prosecution as also the evidence of PW12. According to him latter orders overlooked evidence of PW1 and PW3.

¶17

4 He also adds that order dated 24^th August 2012 was not pressed into service before the benches which have passed orders releasing the co-accused lateron.

¶18

5 Criminal Application No.1177 of 2012 was moved by accused no.3 (juvenile) and present applicant. It has been rejected on 24^th August 2012. This Court has then looked into evidence of PW12 and contention that that evidence was not acceptable. The Court then looks into evidence of PW1 and PW3, takes note of fact that those witnesses found accused persons present on spot and deceased was then tied up. On being questioned, accused persons told him that he tried to steal a cell-phone in the night.

¶19

6 Criminal Application No.1212 of 2018 was moved by accused no.2 and there the Court has looked into the evidence of other witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW3 to note that they had not seen actual assault. Therefore, accused no.2 has been enlarged on bail.

¶20

7 Criminal Application No.1699 of 2018 was moved and on 24^th January 2019, this Court has released accused no.4 on bail after noticing various omissions in deposition of PW12. It also found that PW12 has surfaced as witness almost 2 days after the incident.

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

3 appa-287.19.docx

¶23

8 Criminal Application No.238 of 2019 was then moved by accused no.1 and very same bench on 26^th February 2019 allowed it by referring to its earlier order dated 24^th January 2019 (supra). In paragraph 3 this Court pointed out that additionally applicant accused no.1 was in jail for more than 8 years. Thus, in very same crime and matter, in the face of identical evidence against all, accused no.1, 2 and 4 are on bail. Accused no.3 is juvenile.

¶24

9 The case of accused no.5 does not stand on different footing. He is almost for 9 years as of now in jail. Appeal preferred by him is of year 2012. In this situation, we are inclined to order his release on bail on following terms and conditions :-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶27

(ii) He shall also place on record on affidavit address at which he shall be always available during pendency of this appeal with his contact number;

¶28

(iii) Similar details in relation to his surety/s shall also be furnished;

¶29

(iv) He shall report on first working Monday once after gap of two months to Superintendent/Registrar in the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay;

¶30

3 of 4

¶31

4 appa-287.19.docx

¶32

(vi) Failure to observe terms and conditions of this order shall entitle respondent to take him in custody;

¶33

(vii) Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶34

(MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)

¶35

(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶36

4 of 4

Merraj Tikur Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Merraj Tikur Shaikh 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

Ramesh Rajanna Pandori Vs the State of Maharasthra

Rupesh Sudhakar Mayekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vicky@Iyob Vishwanath Shrisundar Vs the State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra Vs Ramnath Maruti Patil and Ors.

Mohd. Hanif Ahmad Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kachru Satu Salve Vs the Principal Secretary and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs and Ors.