Allowed

Amira Sohrab Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Mar 2021BA/300/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application by the applicant, who was arrested for conspiracy to commit murder and obstructing justice. The court held that since no role in the actual killing is attributed to her and the case relies on circumstantial evidence, the case for bail is made out, granting provisional cash bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted; Release directed on executing P.R. Bond in Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in like amount or provisional cash bail security.

Amira Sohrab Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

5- BA-300-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 300 OF 2021

¶4

Amira Sohrab Khan � Applicant Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra � Respondent

¶6

Mr. Adil A. Mirza i/b. Mr. A. A. Mirza, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Santosh Darade, (API), Kalyan Taluka Police Station, Present.

¶7

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 23rd MARCH, 2021

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

1.The applicant is arrested in C.R. No. I-558 of 2019
registered with Kalyan Taluka Police Station for offences under
Section 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant
was arrested on 13th November, 2019.

¶10

Digitally signed by RajeP. RajeP. AherDate: Aher 2021.03.25 21:22:20 +0530

¶11

2.The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 and the
deceased were in relationship. They were residing together. The
deceased came to know about the relationship of accused No.1 with
the applicant. There were quarrels between the accused No.1 and
deceased. To get rid off the deceased, the accused No.1 had allegedly
throttled the deceased and called the applicant, who was his friend
to conceal the body of deceased in a sack and thereafter, the accused

¶12

1 of 3

¶13

Sajakali Jamadar

¶14

5- BA-300-2021.doc

¶15

No.1 had tried to dispose off the body by burning it. The prosecution
is relying upon the calls exchanged between accused No.1 and the
applicant. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed.

¶16

3.On perusal of the charge-sheet it is apparent that the
case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to
the incident. The only role that has been ascribed to the applicant is
that she was the friend of accused No.1. After the accused No.1 had
allegedly killed the deceased, the applicant was called at the place of
incident and with the aid of the applicant, the body of the deceased
was packed in gunny bag which was thereafter taken by the accused
No.1 to the place where he burnt it.

¶17

4.The prosecution is relying upon the CDR to indicate that
there was calls between the applicant and accused No.1. It is not the
prosecution case that, the applicant was present at the scene of
offence at the time of murder. The charge can be attributed to the
applicant for offence under Section 201 of IPC. The deceased was
allegedly strangulated by the accused No.1 The applicant is in
custody from 13th November, 2019. The statements of witnesses were
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as 164 of Cr.P.C.. On
perusal of the said statement it can be seen that no role of
participation in the murder of the deceased has been attributed to

¶18

2 of 3

¶19

Sajakali Jamadar

¶20

5- BA-300-2021.doc

¶21

the applicant.

¶22

5.Learned APP submitted that relationship between the
applicant and accused No.1 has been established. The applicant has
participated in the crime. However, as stated above, there is no
evidence to indicate that the applicant was involved in committing
murder of deceased. Hence, case for grant of bail is made out.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) Criminal Bail Application No. 300 of 2021 is allowed;

¶25

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No. I-558 of 2019 registered with Kalyan
Taluka Police Station on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶26

(iii)The applicant shall report concerned Police Station once
in three month on first Saturday of the month between 11:00
a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till further order;

¶27

(iv)The applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash
bail security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- for a period of eight
weeks in lieu of surety.

¶28

(v) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

Sajakali Jamadar

Amira Sohrab Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amira Sohrab Khan 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

Saranya Manikandan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Irvin Jivan Vohra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dinesh Prabhakar Golhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mayur Ramabhai Bhandari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Farhan Raza Rafiullah Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dayashankar Bagwatiprasad Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra