Allowed

Nusrat Sameer Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Feb 2024IA/232/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application by accused No.4 among 36 accused in a mob assault causing death; no progress in trial despite earlier liberty. Court granted bail on stringent conditions given prolonged incarceration, notwithstanding criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties; conditions include monthly reporting to IO, no tampering, no entry into Nashik District except for trial.

Nusrat Sameer Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:5308

¶2

PMB 909.ba.3896-23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.3896 OF 2023

¶5

IMRAN ISMAIL SAYYED ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶6

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.232 OF 2024 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.3896 OF 2023

¶7

NUSRAT SAMEER SHAIKH ..APPLICANT IN THE MATTER BETWEEN IMRAN ISMAIL SAYYED ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶8

Adv. Aniket Vagal a/w Adv. Divesh Mehani a/w Adv. Kunal Pednekar a/w Adv. Savvy Kolhekar for the applicant. Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP for the respondent-State. Adv. Virendra V. Pethe for the complainant.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : FEBRUARY 1, 2024

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP

¶13

for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

¶14

2. This is a second application for bail filed by the

¶15

applicant. The first bail application was withdrawn by the applicant by the order dated 21.09.2023 with liberty to file

¶16

1/6

¶17

PMB 909.ba.3896-23.doc

¶18

an application after six months if the trial does not progress substantially. There are in all 36 accused. The applicant is the accused No.4. The applicant is seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.172 of 2018 registered with Manmad Police Station, District Nashik for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 307, 324, 323, 452, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 7-A of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1995 and under Section 4(25) of Arms Act.

¶19

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.09.2018 one Iliyas Sayyed and others hatched conspiracy and called the applicant and other accused at Ekta Nagar. The accused armed with weapons such as sticks, chopper, rod, iron pipes and sword, created terror at Ekta Nagar, caused damage to the vehicles and assaulted complainant’s husband. He died during medical treatment. The FIR was lodged on 26.09.2018. On completing investigation, charge-sheet is filed.

¶20

4. The applicant was arrested on 02.10.2018 and is now

¶21

2/6

¶22

PMB 909.ba.3896-23.doc

¶23

in custody for more than five years and three months. The trial Court has framed the charges after this Court had directed that the charges being framed in a time bound manner. There is a recovery of a sword and chopper at the instance of the present applicant. The statement of the eye witness reveals that the mob of around 36 persons assaulted the victim. The victim suffered as many as 14 injuries. The assault was brutal. Prima facie I find that there is no specific role attributed to the present applicant but then generally the case that the accused assaulted the victim with deadly weapons as even the applicant was armed with a deadly weapon. There is recovery of a sword and chopper at his instance. There is another co-accused from whom the sword has been recovered.

¶24

5. This Court by an order dated 22.06.2023 in respect of the co-accused – Nadim Salim Shaikh while rejecting his bail application observed that in the event the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from 22.06.2023, the applicant – co-accused will be at a liberty to prefer fresh application for bail before this Court. As indicated earlier

¶25

3/6

¶26

PMB 909.ba.3896-23.doc

¶27

and even thereafter this Court by an order dated 21.09.2023 while allowing the applicant to withdraw the bail application granted liberty to file an application after six months if the trial does not progress substantially, in this period there has been no progress in the trial. There are 66 witnesses the prosecution intends to examine. In view of the length of the incarceration coupled with the fact that the

¶28

trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon and in the facts and circumstances of the present case I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶29

6. There are criminal antecedents reported against the applicant. Though I am not inclined to deprive the facility of bail to the applicant only on the ground of criminal antecedents, however I propose to impose stringent conditions while enlarging the applicant on bail taking an overall view of the matter.

¶30

7. Learned counsel for the applicant on instruction of the brother of the applicant states that the applicant is willing to reside in Mumbai/Mumbai Suburban District and shall not enter Nashik district except for the purpose of attending the

¶31

4/6

¶32

PMB 909.ba.3896-23.doc

¶33

trial and reporting to the Investigating Officer. The statement is accepted.

¶34

8. Hence, the following order :-

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

(a) The application is allowed.

¶37

(b) The applicant-Imran Ismail Sayyed in connection with C.R. No.172 of 2018 registered with Manmad Police Station shall be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶38

(c) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer of Manmad Police Station once in a month every first Monday of the month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.

¶39

(d) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶40

(e) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change.

¶41

5/6

¶42

PMB 909.ba.3896-23.doc

¶43

(f) Except for attending the trial and for the purpose of reporting to the Investigating Ofcer, the applicant shall not enter the area of Nashik District after being released on bail, till the trial concludes.

¶44

(g) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

¶45

9. The bail application is disposed of.

¶46

10. The interim application is also disposed of.

¶47

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶48

6/6

¶49

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/02/2024 13:31:34

Nusrat Sameer Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nusrat Sameer Shaikh 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

Vasant Soma Uchil Vs Girish Sanjiva Uchil

Suryakant Hari Sangale Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Prasanna Ravindra Kadu Vs State of Maharashtra

Devidas @ Deva Ghanshyam Pavhane Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rakesh Roshan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Padmashree Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr. vs the Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.