Dismissed¶7

Mehboob Saifan Balurgi v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Feb 2025BA/5026/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejection — murder/conspiracy case, Bombay HC, Criminal Bail Application No. 5026 of 2024, decided 11-02-2025 by N. R. Borkar J. Applicant Mehboob Saifan Balurgi; Crime No. 788 of 2021, Bharati Vidyapeeth PS, Pune; SS 302, 120-B, 109, 115 IPC; Arms Act ss. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9; ss. 37(1)/135 Maharashtra Police Act; incident 06.12.2021; financial-dispute motive; deceased's father eye witness placing applicant with assailants; parity plea vis-a-vis co-accused released for want of T.I. Parade rejected; 3+ years custody, trial not commenced noted as defence submission.

What did the court decide?

The motive for the alleged crime stands attributed to the present applicant, and according to the father of the deceased the applicant was with the assailants at the time of the alleged incident. ¶7

Mehboob Saifan Balurgi vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

906-BA-5026-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5026 OF 2024

¶4

Mehboob Saifan Balurgi ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Amit Icham a/w Mr. Chaitanya Purankar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. T. G. Khan, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State.

¶7

CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 11^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

This is an application for regular bail.

¶10

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No. 788

¶11

of 2021 registered at Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, District : Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 109, 115 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(25) (1-B)(a), 5(27), 7(25)(1-AA), 8(2)(25)(1-B)(C), 9(1)(A)(i) (25)(1-B)(D) of the Arms Act and Sections 37(1) r/w Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

¶12

According to the prosecution, there was financial

¶13

dispute between the deceased and the present applicant. It is

1 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

906-BA-5026-2024.doc

alleged that the present applicant had thus entered into conspiracy with the co-accused to kill the deceased. It is alleged that pursuant to the said conspiracy, on the date of incident which took place on 06.12.2021, the present applicant and other co-accused fired gun shots at the deceased and committed his murder.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court has already released the co-accused, who actually fired the gun shots at the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant is in jail for more than three years and the trial has not commenced. It is submitted that considering the above circumstances the applicant be released on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent – State submits that the present applicant is the main accused and was known to the father of the deceased, who is an eye witness to the incident. It is submitted that other co-accused were not known to the father of the deceased and

¶21

this Court has released them for want of T.I Parade. It is

2 of 3

Sajakali Jamadar

906-BA-5026-2024.doc

submitted that considering the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail.

¶26

The motive for alleged crime is attributed to the present applicant. According to the father of the deceased, the present applicant was with the assailants at the time of alleged incident. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The application is rejected.

¶27

3 of 3

¶28

Sajakali Jamadar

Mehboob Saifan Balurgi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehboob Saifan Balurgi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Digambar S/O Anandrao Pingle vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Brijmohan Chandrabhan Gupta vs the State of Maharahstra and Anr.

Samarth Maruti Hatture vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Happy Surendrasingh Sandhu vs the State of Maharashtra

Rafi Sikandar Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Sopan Mundhe vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.