In a bail application under Cr.P.C. regarding murder and kidnapping, the High Court rejected the bail plea. The court held that circumstances including last seen together, motive, and recovery of the victim's phone formed a complete chain of incriminating evidence, making no case for bail.
Bail application rejected; Applicant remains in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 : 12-ba-137-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2021
Arbaj Ayub Shaikh .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
Mr. Rahul S. Kadam a/w. Maaz Syed for Applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 05th MARCH, 2021
P.C. :
the present applicant were friends. The applicant had given
1 of 6
Gokhale
: 2 : 12-ba-137-21.odt
Rs.1500/- by way of hand-loan to the deceased Aamir. There was a dispute regarding that loan. The applicant wanted a mobile phone of the deceased if amount was not repaid. The deceased did not give his mobile phone and, therefore, the applicant got angry. On 11/01/2020 between 4:00p.m. to 10:00p.m. deceased who was aged 14 years was taken by the applicant to the farm of one Prashant Bichdu, situated near the road between Nannaj to Mardi. The applicant then made him to consume some liquor and assaulted him with stone on his head causing his death.
2 of 6
: 3 : 12-ba-137-21.odt
had gone to one Shubham. When the informant called Shubham, he denied that Aamir had come to him. Therefore, the informant suspected the applicant. Police were informed. They made inquiries with the applicant. He confessed to the commission of crime and informed about the spot where Aamir was lying injured. The informant and others went there. Aamir was seen lying in injured condition. He was removed to the hospital but he was declared dead before admission and, therefore, this F.I.R. was lodged.
3 of 6
12-ba-137-21.odt
: 4 :
deserves to be released on bail.
assistance of both learned counsel I have perused the entire charge-sheet. There are following circumstances against the present applicant;
i) Last seen together with the deceased.
In that context, there are statements of witnesses
namely Jagannath Gawali, Datta Chaturbhuj, Aamir Shaikh, Trambak Dhule and Sagar Tonpe. All of them had seen the applicant going with the deceased together around the time of sunset. Some of these witnesses have stated that the applicant had
4 of 6
: 5 : 12-ba-137-21.odt
purchased liquor and deceased Aamir was with him.
ii) Second circumstance is of the statement of one Shubham Vitkar. He has stated that, in the evening he had made a phone call on deceased Aamir’s phone number. It was picked up by the applicant and he told this witness that Aamir had gone out. This shows that the applicant was with the deceased and he had answered the phone call when he had already committed murder of the deceased.
iii) Third circumstance is of recovery of the mobile phone belonging to the deceased at the instance of the present applicant. It was recovered at the instance of the present applicant from his house on 13/01/2020 pursuant to the memorandum statement given by the applicant himself. This is another seriously incriminating circumstance against the applicant in the context of this case.
5 of 6
: 6 : 12-ba-137-21.odt
These circumstances formed complete chain and they are seriously incriminating circumstances. The time when the applicant was seen together with the deceased was proximate to the time of finding of the dead body.
10. Application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a murder case where incriminating circumstances form a complete chain.
Whether the recovery of the deceased's mobile phone at the applicant's instance establishes guilt.
Arbaj Ayub Shaikh
The State of Maharashtra
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
