Allowed

Nilesh Ravindranath Shukla v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Dec 2023BA/1902/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a murder charge, the Bombay HC granted bail to the accused after six years of incarceration due to the prosecution's failure to advance the trial, despite strong merits-based opposition to bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to standard conditions including surrender of passport and reporti

Nilesh Ravindranath Shukla Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1.ba-1902-22.odt

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1902 OF 2022

¶5

Nilesh Ravindranath Shukla ….. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Advocate a/w. Jyoti R. Shahu, Ayush
Pasbola for the Applicant.

¶7

Ms. Sangita D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶9

DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1.This is the second occasion when the Applicant has

¶12

approached this Court for his release on bail in connection
with C.R. No.388/2018 dated 20.8.2018 registered at MIDC

¶13

Police Station, Mumbai under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.
On the earlier occasion, the Petitioner had filed Criminal Bail
Application No.109/2020. It was argued fully at that time; and
when this Court had expressed disinclination to grant relief in
that application, learned counsel for the Applicant had
withdrawn that application unconditionally. That order was
passed in said Criminal Bail Application No.109/2020 on

¶14

1 of 10

¶15

Deshmane(PS)

¶16

: 2 : 1.ba-1902-22.odt

¶17

17.7.2021. After that there was no further progress in the trial
at all and even the charges are not framed and, therefore, the
Applicant has again approached this Court for his release on
bail on the ground of long incarceration and also on the
ground of merits of the matter.

¶18

2.Considering that there is no progress in the trial at
all, I have heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned
APP and, therefore, I am entertaining this Application.

¶19

3.The Applicant was arrested on 25.8.2018. Since
then he is in custody. The prosecution story is that the
Applicant was entertaining a doubt in his mind that the
deceased Avinash in this case was having affair with the
Applicant’s wife. The Applicant called the deceased to his
Industrial Unit at MIDC, Andheri, Mumbai on 17.8.2018. The
Applicant then committed his murder by assaulting him with
hammer and inflicted injuries with knife. According to the
prosecution case, the Applicant was helped by one
Vashbahadur Singh in the actual assault. The third accused
Ankit Dubey helped the Applicant in destroying the evidence.

¶20

2 of 10

¶21

: 3 : 1.ba-1902-22.odt

¶22

The charge-sheet is filed against all three accused. The other
two accused are already granted bail.

¶23

4.Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
the case depends only on the circumstantial evidence. There
are no eye witnesses to the incident. The motive attributed to
him cannot be established through evidence of the witnesses.
The other circumstance is of recovery of weapon. Out of the
two weapons used, the knife was recovered from the industrial
unit of the Applicant and the hammer was not found.

¶24

5.Shri Pasbola submitted that the material shows
that after arrest of the Applicant, the key of the industrial unit
was with the police and, therefore, the industrial unit was
accessible to others. It was no more in exclusive possession of
the Applicant at the time of recovery of the knife from the
industrial unit. There is other circumstance of extra-judicial
confession by the Applicant to his own wife, brother and one
more person, but, that is a weak piece of evidence and there
was no reason for the Applicant to make that confession.

¶25

6.Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that

3 of 10

1.ba-1902-22.odt

: 4 :

the next circumstance against the Applicant was ‘last seen
together’ theory. However, there is no cogent evidence to show
that the person who was seen with the Applicant was none
other than the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that even on
merit, the Applicant has a good case.

¶30

7.Shri Pasbola emphasized that there is absolutely
no progress in the trial for more than five and half years. Even
the charges are not framed. There is no likelihood of the trial
beginning in the near future. There are many witnesses cited
in the charge-sheet and, therefore, even if the trial starts, it will
take a very long time to reach its conclusion. The Applicant has
already been in custody for more than five and half years.
Therefore, on this ground also, the Applicant deserves to be
released on bail.

¶31

8.Learned APP opposed these submissions on merits.
She submitted that the postmortem notes show that there were
28 serious injuries inflicted on the deceased. Therefore, it is a
cruel offence. There is sufficient material against the
Applicant, which is referred to by Shri Pasbola. She submitted

¶32

4 of 10

¶33

: 5 : 1.ba-1902-22.odt

¶34

that this incriminating material is strong enough to convict the

¶35

Applicant. She, therefore, strongly opposed grant of bail on
merits of the matter.

¶36

9.As far as delay in the trial is concerned, learned
APP produced a copy of the entire Roznama of the case, which
is taken on record and marked ‘X collectively’ for identification.
She submitted that the accused Nos.2 & 3, who are on bail, are
not attending the court regularly. There is an NBW pending
against the accused No.2. Therefore, the trial could not begin.

¶37

10.Learned APP also produced the medical report of
the Applicant, which shows that his condition is being regularly
monitored and he is under psychiatric treatment as per advice
of Psychiatrist visiting Mumbai Central Prison from Sir J.J.

¶38

Hospital. The medical advice was to continue with the
medication. As of today, the Applicant’s condition is stable.
There were no fresh complaints about the Applicant’s health.

¶39

11.I have considered these submissions. As far as
recovery of the knife is concerned, there is a statement given
by the Applicant on 29.8.2018 pursuant to which the recovery

¶40

5 of 10

¶41

: 6 : 1.ba-1902-22.odt

¶42

was made. The panchnama shows that the office was opened
with the key, which was with the police. After that the
Applicant led the panchas and the police inside the office. He
pulled a table and pointed out the place where that knife was
lying. Thus, though the keys were with the police, the
Applicant had knowledge where he had concealed the knife
and it was recovered because the Applicant pointed that
particular place where it was concealed. In any case, this is
matter of trial. At this stage, this is an incriminating material
against the Applicant. The other weapon i.e. hammer was not
recovered.

¶43

12.The postmortem notes shows that there were 28
serious injuries, including incised wounds and injuries on the
head. The cause of death was mentioned as “head injury with
multiple stab and incised injuries”.

¶44

13.The motive was spoken by the wife and brother
Sanjay of the Applicant.

¶45

14. In respect of the circumstance of extra-judicial confession, there are statements of the Applicant’s wife 6 of 10

¶46

: 7 : 1.ba-1902-22.odt

¶47

Priyanka, brother Sanjay and one Tribhuvan Singh. This
witness Tribhuvan Singhhas also stated about the motive that
the Applicant was having suspicion against the deceased.

¶48

15.There is a statement of one Yadubans Tiwari in
respect of ‘last seen together’ theory. He has seen the deceased
with the Applicant at the place of incident at around the time
when the incident had taken place. He was shown the
photograph of the deceased and, therefore, he had identified
him, from that photograph, as the person who was with the
Applicant at the time of the incident.

¶49

16.Thus, taking into account all these circumstances
together, there is sufficient incriminating material against the
present Applicant. Therefore, on the previous occasion I had
expressed my disinclination to grant relief and accordingly the
Application was withdrawn. However, as of today, even the
charges are not framed. Therefore, I have to take serious note
of this fact.

¶50

17.The Roznama produced before me shows that that
the Applicant himself has not caused any delay. On most of the

¶51

7 of 10

¶52

: 8 : 1.ba-1902-22.odt

¶53

occasions, the Applicant was not even produced from the jail.
An NBW is pending against the accused No.2. No efforts are
taken to arrest the accused No.2 and to produce him before the
Court. No efforts are taken to separate the case of the present
Applicant from that of the other two co-accused. All this shows
that there are serious lapses on the part of the prosecution in
taking immediate steps to start the trial.

¶54

18.The learned trial Judge can also exercise sufficient
control over the proceedings so that the trial could start,
however, the Roznama does not indicate that any immediate
and serious steps were taken to start the trial. Therefore,
learned counsel for the Applicant is justified in making a
grievance that the Applicant is in custody since 25.8.2018
without any progress in the trial whatsoever. Even the charges
are not yet framed. There are many witnesses who are cited in
the charge-sheet. Therefore even after the charges are
framed, it will take a very long time for the trial to conclude.

¶55

19.The parents of the Applicant have tendered an
affidavit before the Court in view of the medical condition of

8 of 10

1.ba-1902-22.odt

: 9 :

the Applicant. They have undertaken to provide proper
medical treatment to him and have also undertaken to keep
him under control. That affidavit is taken on record and
marked ‘Y’ for identification.

¶60

20.Considering these circumstances and the ground of

¶61

delay in trial, I am inclined to grant bail to the present
Applicant. Hence, the following order:

¶62

:: O R D E R ::

¶63

i.The Applicant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with C.R. No.388/2018 registered at
MIDC Police Station, Mumbai on his executing a PR

¶64

bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.

¶65

ii.The Applicant shall attend every single date before
the trial Court and shall cooperate with the early
disposal of the trial.

¶66

iii. The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence. He
shall not cause any threat to any witnesses.

9 of 10

1.ba-1902-22.odt

: 10 :

iv.The Applicant shall report to the nearest police
station from his residence every Sunday between 1.00
p.m. to 2.00 p.m..

¶71

v. The Applicant shall surrender his passport with the investigating officer before being released on bail.

¶72

vi. The Applicant shall not leave Mumbai City and
Mumbai Sub-urban District without prior permission
of the trial Court.

¶73

vii.If there is violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶74

Respondents are at liberty to take steps for getting the
Applicant’s bail cancelled.

¶75

viii.With these observations, the Application is disposed
of.

¶76

PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE

¶77

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2023.12.15 18:18:41 +0530

¶78

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶79

Deshmane (PS)

¶80

10 of 10

Nilesh Ravindranath Shukla v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Ravindranath Shukla 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

M/S. Magnates Enterprises and Ors. Vs Income Tax Department through Anne Varghese Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Moreshwar K. Baria Vs Income Tax Department through Anne Varghese Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

M/S. Amey Builders and Property Developers and Ors. Vs Income Tax Department through Anne Varghese Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Mohammed Khizar Hussain Tuhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subodh Vijay Patwardhan Vs Manoj Bhalchandra Patil and Anr.

Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., Kalwan through Sahebrao Nimba Pawar and Anr.