Allowed

Hamid Rahim Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Jul 2019APPA/991/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court released applicant on bail during pendency of appeal. Judgment noted weak prosecution case, hostile witnesses, and procedural gaps in identifying accusedes. Court granted bail on bonds with specific reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing ₹20,000 bond with sureties, affidavit of address, and reporting to court every six months.

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

¶1

1 appa-991.18

¶2

Nalawade

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.991 OF 2018 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.963 OF 2014

¶6

Hamid Rahim Shaikh … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Nitin Pradhan a/w Ms. Shubhada D. Khot for the Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent - State.

¶8

Ms. Sanjana Pardeshi i/by Law Global for Appellant in Appeal No.939/2014.

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 25th July, 2019.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

After hearing respective counsel on 23.7.2019 we passed the

¶12

following order.

¶13

“1 Heard respective counsel. Submission is incident dated 15^th January 2009 at 3.30 pm is claimed to be watched by several friends of deceased Sanjay Patil. Prosecution has examined PW4, PW5, PW8, PW11, PW12, PW14 and PW15 as eye witnesses. The

¶14

1 of 5

¶15

2 appa-991.18

¶16

trial Court has found that witnesses PW4, PW5 and PW8 have turned hostile. PW11, PW12 and PW15 have been disbelieved by it. Conviction therefore prima facie is based upon deposition of PW14 only.

¶17

2 PW14 though claimed to have seen accused persons and described them, identification by him in TIP has not been accepted by trial Court. Not only this because the photograph of accused persons were already published and their names were known to everybody, their identification in Court by these witnesses also does not remain that relevant.

¶18

3 In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that alleged recovery of weapon from applicant - accused no.2 also does not find favour with the trial Court. Motor cycle used for committing the offence is found to be disposed of by accused Shankar Shewale. The said accused was charged with offence under section 201 IPC and has been acquitted.

¶19

4 The question which arose before this Court is in this situation how accused no.2 has surfaced as one out of the two shooters. FIR was registered three hours after incident and it is against unknown persons.

¶20

2 of 5

¶21

3 appa-991.18

¶22

5 We therefore grant learned APP time till 25^th July 2019 to explain how accused persons have surfaced and when their names have been added in FIR.”

¶23

Today the learned APP initially submitted that the instructions in the matter are still being gathered. As request for adjournment was opposed, learned APP assisted the court by inviting attention to deposition of P.W.12.

¶24

P.W.12 Suryakant claims to be a rickshaw driver who on 15.1.2009 at about 3.30p.m. had dropped passenger in a hotel near the spot of incident. He states that when he was waiting for other passenger, he heard some noise and looked in the directions of hotel Shivdarshan. He found two persons firing on deceased Sanjay Patil. After firing both of them came to main road and using a black pulser motor cycle went in directions of Kolhapur. He states that Sagar started motor cycle while present applicant Hamid sat pillion on it. He claims that he was knowing these two accused persons.

¶25

His Statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 17.1.2009 i.e. two days after the incident. Trial Court has in Para 24 of his Judgment disbelieved this witness.

¶26

3 of 5

¶27

4 appa-991.18

¶28

Even the pistols allegedly recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act have not been connected with the crime.

¶29

Applicant is in Jail since the date of his arrest and thus completing about 10 years in prison. Appeal is of 2014 and considering the present situation one cannot say with certainty when it would be heard finally.

¶30

We are therefore inclined to release the applicant Hamid Rahim Shaikh on following terms and conditions.

¶31

(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;

¶32

(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;

¶33

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

¶34

(iv) He shall report on first working Monday once after interval of two months to Superintendent/Registrar of the trial Court;

¶35

(v) Vakalatnama filed in appeal shall be kept alive and valid during pendnecy of appeal. He shall not be entitled to any

¶36

4 of 5

¶37

5 appa-991.18

¶38

fresh notice at the stage of final hearing.

¶39

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

¶40

(vii) Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶41

(MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)

¶42

(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶43

5 of 5

Hamid Rahim Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamid Rahim 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

Golu Mustak Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nilkanth Kashinath Trimukhe and Ors.

Santosh Dashrath Sonawane @ Khandya Vs the Deputy Inspector General (Prison) and Anr.

Sandeep Shamrao Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramjas Motilal Jaiswar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Ehadali @ Yadulla Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra