Shakir Shakil Ahmed vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shakir Shakil Ahmed vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs.30,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount, on conditions: (i) attendance before the Trial Court on each and every date unless exempted; (ii) reporting at Kelva Sagari Police Station twice a month on every 2nd and 4th Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., till charges are framed; (iii) deposit of passport (if not already deposited) with the concerned Police Station; (iv) no leaving India without permission of the Trial Court; (v) no tampering with or influencing or contacting the complainant, witnesses or persons concerned with the case; (vi) informing latest place of residence and mobile number, and changes thereto, to the Court seized of the matter and the Investigating Officer; (vii) co-operation with the conduct of the trial; any infraction shall entail cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, who has been in custody since 10/06/2024 (about 16 months) in connection with C.R. No. 30 of 2024 under Section 307 IPC with charges not yet framed, should be enlarged on bail. +2 more

Court's answer

With the Applicant in custody since 10/06/2024, charges not yet framed, trial unlikely to conclude soon, the Applicant being only 23 years old with no antecedents, and continued incarceration alongside hardened criminals being undesirable, the Applicant was to be enlarged on bail on conditions.

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted that the CCTV footage reveals the Applicant picking up an iron rod from the garage and hitting the injured on his head, and that the injuries are grievous.

Key takeaways

Despite the grievous injuries, the chronology of events led the Court to believe the entire incident happened out of a fallout between the friends and may be on the spur of the moment, not entirely a premeditated act.ratio¶23
All observations in the order were declared prima facie and confined to the bail application; the Trial Judge is to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by them.obiter¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — S.307 IPC — Bombay High Court (Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.) enlarged on bail a 23-year-old applicant detained since 10/06/2024 (about 16 months) in C.R. No. 30 of 2024, Kelva Sagari Police Station, Palghar, where CCTV footage showed him striking the injured with an iron rod on the head causing grievous injuries. Though acknowledging the gravity of the injuries, the Court, reading the chronology — a Rs. 500 borrowing dispute among four friends, a slap, and a next-day confrontation at the garage — held the incident appeared to be a fallout between friends occurring on the spur of the moment rather than an entirely premeditated act. With charges not yet framed and the trial unlikely to conclude in the near future, and considering the applicant's age, lack of antecedents, and the undesirability of incarcerating him with hardened criminals, bail was allowed on a PR bond of Rs.30,000/ with one or two local sureties, subject to conditions including attendance on every trial date, reporting at the police station every 2nd and 4th Saturday till charges are framed, deposit of passport, no departure from India without permission, and abstention from contacting or tampering with the complainant and witnesses; infraction entails cancellation. Earlier bail application had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Court, Palghar on 30/09/2024. All observations were declared prima facie and confined to the bail application, the trial to proceed uninfluenced by them.

19-ba-2017-25.docx

Ingale

Digitally signed URMILA by URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2025.10.04 12:34:25 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2017 OF 2025

Shakir Shakil Ahmed .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

Ms. Harshaday V. Morey, Advocate for Applicant.

Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr. K.N. Sonawane, Police Official from Kelva Sagari Police Station present.

CORAM : DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

DATE : OCTOBER 3, 2025

P. C.:

By the present application, the Applicant seeks his release

on bail in connection with the CR. No. 30 of 2024 dated 02/06/2025 registered with the Kelva Sagari Police Station, Palghar for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It is the case of the prosecution that there was some dispute between few friends pertaining to the amount of Rs. 500/borrowed by the injured from the Applicant. On 31/05/2024 the injured borrowed Rs.500/- from the Applicant which was the

1 of 6

19-ba-2017-25.docx

trigger for their dispute. The injured slapped the Applicant twice for which the Applicant vowed to take revenge. On the next day i.e. on 01/06/2024 at 9.00 a.m., the Applicant went to the garage where the injured was working and there was some altercation between them. The CCTV footage recovered by the investigating agency revealed that the Applicant hit the injured with an iron rod on his head. The injured suffered grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital. Accordingly, on the next date, the FIR was registered. The Applicant filed the bail application before the Additional Sessions Court, Palghar and by order dated 30/09/2024, the Application was rejected. Hence, he has filed the present Application for the reliefs as prayed.

Ms. Harshday V. Morey, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is arrested on 10/06/2024 and has suffered incarceration of about 16 months. The charges are not framed as yet. The Applicant is a young boy of 23 years of age and has no antecedents. She also submits that entire incident arose out of some dispute between 4 friends. In these circumstances, she submits that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.

2 of 6

19-ba-2017-25.docx

Ms. Megha Bajoria, learned APP, on the other hand, submits that there is a CCTV footage which clearly shows that the Applicant took an iron rod lying at the garage and hit the injured twice on his head. The injured has suffered grievous injuries as per the medical report which is on record. She submits that the offence is not committed on a spur of the moment and it appears to be a premeditated act. Ms. Bajoria also submits that the Applicant is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and it will be difficult to secure his attendance for trial if he is enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, she prays that the Application be rejected.

I have heard both the counsel and gone through the record with their assistance. The CCTV footage does reveal the Applicant picking up an iron rod from the garage and hitting the injured on his head. The injuries are undoubtedly grievous. However, the chronology of the events compels me to believe that the entire incident happened out of a fallout between these friends and it may be on the spur of the moment and not entirely a premeditated act. The Applicant is in custody since 10/06/2024. The charges are not yet framed. It does not appear likely that the trial would be concluded in the near future.

3 of 6

19-ba-2017-25.docx

Considering the fact that the Applicant is only 23 years of age

and it is not desirable to continue his incarceration with hardened criminal, also the fact that he has no antecedents, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail on the following conditions.

ORDER

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing

PR Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount;

ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date unless exempted by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;

iii) Applicant shall also attend the concerned Police

Station i.e. Kelva Sagari Police Station twice a month, on every 2^nd and 4^th Saturday, between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. till the charges are framed;

iv) If the Applicant has not deposited his passport,

the Applicant shall deposit the same with the concerned

Police Station;

4 of 6

19-ba-2017-25.docx

v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without the permission of the Trial Court;

vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence

or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial;

ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

6. Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.

7. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned

5 of 6

19-ba-2017-25.docx

Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by

the observations made herein.

[ DR.NEELA GOKHALE, J.]

6 of 6