Pappu Alias Mohammad Kutub Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra

SWAROOPSHARAD Digitally signedby SWAROOPSHARADPHADKE PHADKE Date: 2022.07.0618:54:05 +0530

26 ba 1125 of 2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.1125 OF 2022

Pappu @ Mohammad Kutub Qureshi …Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶5

Ms. Sonali R. Chavan i/by Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for Applicant.
Mrs. M.R.Tidke, APP, for State.

¶6

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 5th JULY, 2022

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1.This is an application for bail. The Applicant – Accused No.2 along with
co-accused Haider Noor Shaikh (Accused No.1), Shoaib Saied Shaikh (Accused No.3)
and Mirza @ Jakir Noor Shaikh (Accused No.4) have been arraigned in C.R.No.69 of
2016 registered with Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 363, 364,365, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

¶10

2.The gravamen of indictment against the Applicant and co-acused is that
the wife of Haider (Accused No.1) allegedly had extra marital relations with Prashant
Gumanekar (deceased), the younger brother of Sikandar Ashok Gumanekar, the first
informant. The relations between Haidar (Accused No.1) and the deceased were
strained over the said issue of alleged extra marital relations. A month prior to the
occurrence, there was an altercation. A meeting was held to resolve the disputes, in

¶11

SSP 1/6

¶12

26 ba 1125 of 2022.doc

¶13

which the first informant and his relatives and Haidar (Accused No.1) and his relatives
participated and made efforts to resolve the dispute. Since then Haider (Accused
No.1) and his relatives had a grudge against the deceased.

¶14

3.On 1st April, 2016 the deceased left the home at about 11.30 a.m. and did
not return. While the first informant and his relatives were searching the deceased,
they were informed by Jitendra that on 1st April, 2016 at about 12.00 noon, 3-4 persons
forcibly made the deceased to board a vehicle, and took him away. As the description
of those persons matched with the accused, the first informant lodged report of
abduction with intent to kill the deceased. The accused were apprehended. Pursuant
to the disclosure statement made by Haider (Accused No.1), body of the deceased was
dis-entered from the house of the Applicant situated at Kesnand, Pune.

¶15

4.This application is preferred principally on the ground of parity. It is
averred that the co-accused Mirza @ Jakir Noor Shaikh (Accused No.4) was released
on bail by this Court by an order dated 7th August, 2017 (in Bail Application No.897 of
2017). Whereas, the co-accused Shoaib Saied Shaikh (Accused No.3) was released on
bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 30th December, 2017.
Moreover, the co-accused Haider (Accused No.1), who allegedly had a grudge against
the deceased suspecting extra marital relations with his wife, has also been released by
this Court by an order dated 28th January, 2022 (in Bail Application No.2716 of 2022).
Thus all the co-accused have been enlarged on bail and the only Applicant continues

¶16

SSP 2/6

¶17

26 ba 1125 of 2022.doc

¶18

to languish in jail since more than six years. Hence, this Application.

¶19

5.I have heard Ms. Sonali Chavan, learned Counsel for the Applicant and
Mrs. Tidke, learned APP for the State at some length. With the assistance of the
learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP, I have perused the report
under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the documents
annexed with it. I have also perused the orders passed by this Court releasing the co-
accused on bail.

¶20

6.The learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that the co-accused
Shoaib Shaikh (Accused No.3) and Mirza Noor Shaikh (Accused No.4), against whom
identical allegations like the Applicant have been made, are released on bail. The
Applicant is similarly circumstanced. The role attributed to Haider (Accused No.1)
who, in a sense, is the principal accused, is relatively grave. Yet Haider (Accused
No.1) has been released on bail opining inter alia that the entire case rests on
circumstantial evidence and, prima facie, the involvement of the said accused is not
made out. Therefore, the Applicant deserves the same dispensation.

¶21

7.Learned APP fairly submitted that the role attributed to the Applicant is
identical to that of the co-accused who have been ordered to be released on bail. In
this backdrop, the claim for parity appears sustainable, submitted the learned APP in
fairness.

¶22

8.Nonetheless, I have perused the material on record to satisfy the judicial

¶23

SSP 3/6

¶24

26 ba 1125 of 2022.doc

¶25

conscious. Indisputably, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The first
circumstance arrayed against the Applicant is that on 1st April, 2016 at about 12.00
noon, Akshay Rampure had seen the deceased being forcibly taken away in a car by 2-3
persons. As regards the said circumstance, this Court in its order dated 7th August,
2017 (in Bail Application No.897 of 2017) recorded that Akshay had not known those
persons from before and no test identification parade was conducted.

¶26

9.Another witness Ankush Mhaske claimed to have seen the deceased in
conversation with Haider (Accused No.1) and the Applicant on 1st April, 2016 at about
12.00 noon. While enlarging Haider (Accused No.1) on bail, this Court adverted to
the statement of the said witness recorded on 2nd April, 2016 and the improvement
purported to have been made by the said witness in the statement recorded on 4th
April, 2016.

¶27

10.Apart from the aforesaid statements, the prosecution has banked upon
two discoveries, first, made by Haider (Accused No.1) on 2nd April, 2016 leading to the
recovery of the body of the deceased from the premises of the Applicant where the
construction was underway. Haider (Accused No.1) had also made a discovery
leading to the recovery of the car in which the deceased was allegedly abducted.
Second, the discovery made by the Applicant to show the place where the clothes on

¶28

the person of Applicant and the deceased and the rope by means of which the
deceased was allegedly strangulated, were burnt. Pursuant to the said discovery,

¶29

SSP 4/6

¶30

26 ba 1125 of 2022.doc

¶31

ashes and remains of burnt articles were allegedly seized.

¶32

11.The prosecution case, thus, hinges upon the theory of last seen and the
evidence of discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is pertinent to
note that the co-accused against whom identical incriminating circumstances are
arrayed, have been released on bail. The allegations against the Applicant stand on
the same footing, if not lessor to that of the co-accused Haider (Accused No.1). This
Court by ascribing reasons was persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of Haider
(Accused No.1). I do not find any justifiable reason to deprive the Applicant of the
dispensation which is extended to the co-accused.

¶33

12.The Applicant has been in custody for more than six years. Since the
co-accused are released on bail, it is unlikely that the trial can be completed in
immediate future. Further detention of the Applicant, in the circumstances of the
case, does not seem warranted. Thus, I am inclined to exercise the discretion in
favour of the Applicant. Hence, the following order :

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(i)The Application stands allowed.

¶36

(ii)The Applicant – Pappu @ Mohammed Kutub Qureshi be released

¶37

on bail in C.R.No.69 of 2016 registered with Vishrantwadi Police Station, Pune, on
furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and one or two sureties in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Pune.

¶38

SSP 5/6

¶39

26 ba 1125 of 2022.doc

¶40

(iii)The Applicant shall mark his presence at Vishrantwadi Police

¶41

Station on the first day of October, January, April, and July in between 10.00 a.m. to
11.00 a.m., till the conclusion of the trail.

¶42

(iv)The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence

¶43

and/or give threat or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶44

(v)The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the

¶45

jurisdictional Court.

¶46

(vii)By way abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations
hereinabove are confined to the consideration of the entitlement for bail and they may
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant
and the learned Sessions Judge shall decide the case on its own merits, in accordance
with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.

¶47

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶48

SSP 6/6

Pappu Alias Mohammad Kutub Qureshi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Alias Mohammad Kutub Qureshi 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

Vrushali Sham Kame Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Navnath Ramchandra Bhosale and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Suresh Hukmat Rai Jadhwani Vs Union of Inda through Directorate General of GST Intelligenceand Anr.

Dilip Shankar Jadhav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Shambhaji Pandurang Khot and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Dattatraya Khandare and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra