Javed Jamil Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

Javed Jamil Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicants Pritesh Mangesh Borde, Javed Jamil Shaikh and Irappa Subhash Shermal directed to be immediately released on bail in connection with Crime No.382 of 2022, Mulund Police Station, on a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety of the like amount, on the same conditions as imposed in Criminal Bail Application No.3062 of 2024, namely: reporting to the Investigating Officer at Mulund Police Station once every month on the first Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon; co-operating with the conduct of trial and attending the Trial Court on all dates unless exempted; not leaving the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence; keeping the Investigating Officer informed of current address and mobile contact details and any change thereof; any infraction entailing cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the three applicants — alleged to have, in addition to beating the victim with fists, prevented nearby persons and eye-witnesses from intervening or helping while the main assault was ongoing — are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the principle of parity with co-accused Pralhad and Arjun, who have already been released on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

Court's answer

The main and direct role in the actual assault, particularly in inflicting the stab wounds which led to the death of the deceased, is primarily attributed to co-accused Chetan, who allegedly used a knife to cause the fatal injuries.

Ratio / Principle

Upon an overall reading of the statements of all eyewitnesses, even the present applicants, along with co-accused Pralhad, have been attributed the similar role of stopping others from intervening or providing help to the victim during the incident; therefore the role attributed to the applicants cannot be said to be graver or materially different from the role of those co-accused who have already been granted bail by this Court.

Key takeaways

In the interest of maintaining parity among similarly placed accused, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail on the same terms and conditions as imposed upon co-accused in Criminal Bail Application No.3062 of 2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and the bail applications stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – Regular bail – S. 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Applicants charged under Ss. 302, 364, 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Crime No. 382 of 2022, Mulund Police Station; incident dated 9th June 2022; FIR by wife of deceased) – Prosecution case: group of seven accused abused and dragged the deceased away; main accused Chetan Shirsat inflicted fatal knife blows on neck and chest, applicants' alleged role being beating with fists and preventing bystanders/eyewitnesses from helping the victim – APP contended applicants' role was distinct and graver than that of co-accused already released – Held, on overall reading of eyewitness statements, the fatal stab wounds are primarily attributed to co-accused Chetan, and the applicants, like co-accused Pralhad, were attributed only the similar role of stopping others from intervening, so their role is neither graver nor materially different from that of co-accused Pralhad and Arjun already granted bail by Co-ordinate Benches (orders dated 8th January 2025 in Bail Application No.3062 of 2024 and 5th October 2023 in Bail Application No.669 of 2023) – On parity, applicants entitled to release on bail on the same terms and conditions as in Criminal Bail Application No.3062 of 2024 – Released on P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including monthly reporting to the I.O., attendance at trial, no departure from Maharashtra without permission, no tampering with witnesses/evidence, and information to I.O. of address/mobile changes; infraction entails cancellation – Bail applications disposed of. (Amit Borkar, J.)