Dismissed¶5

Abdul Salim Mohd Haroon Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Jan 2026BA/5150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: regular bail; bail dismissed; murder; Section 302 Indian Penal Code; Crime No.73 of 2023; Sewree Police Station; prima-facie evidence of involvement; bail-stage court cannot consider trial evidence; observations on trial evidence amount to impermissible interference in trial; Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. inconsistencies; Nikahnama; postmortem homicidal death; recovery of blood stained clothes. Relevant for arguments that a bail-granting court must confine itself to prima facie material and refrain from commenting on evidence to be evaluated at trial, and for the standard applied to bail in serious offences such as homicide.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail denied; no relief granted to the Applicant. ¶5

Abdul Salim Mohd Haroon Shaikh vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail denied; no relief granted to the Applicant.

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the Applicant in respect of Crime No.73 of 2023 (Sewree Police Station) for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

No case is made out for grant of bail; the bail application is dismissed.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

At the bail stage this Court cannot take into consideration the evidence led/to be led before the Trial Court; that is a matter for determination during the trial, and any observations by this Court on such evidence would amount to causing interference in the trial, which is wholly impermissible in law.

¶5

Key takeaways

Prima facie there is evidence showing involvement of the Applicant in a crime of serious nature.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R.M. Joshi, J.), Criminal Bail Application No.5150 of 2024, decided 25 March 2026 — Regular bail application by Abdul Salim Mohd. Haroon Shaikh in Crime No.73 of 2023, Sewree Police Station, for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, arising from his apprehension on 4 June 2023 while along with an injured lady who was declared dead before admission. Counsel for the Applicant urged inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., absence of evidence that the deceased was the Applicant's wife, and inconsistency in the Applicant's name; the APP pointed to the postmortem note indicating homicidal death, a Nikahnama between the Applicant and the deceased, and recovery of the Applicant's blood-stained clothes. The Court held that at the bail stage it is not open to it to take into consideration the evidence led before the Trial Court, and that observations on such evidence would amount to impermissible interference in the trial; prima facie there was evidence of the Applicant's involvement in a serious crime; accordingly no case was made out for grant of bail and the application was dismissed.

¶1

13-ba5150-24.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL

¶6

Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2026.03.25 18:47:52 +0530

¶7

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.5150 OF 2024

¶8

Abdul Salim Mohd. Haroon Shaikh ...Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Mrs.Sana Shaikh for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State - Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 25TH MARCH, 2026.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

This Application is for regular bail in connection with

¶15

Crime No.73 of 2023 registered with Sewree Police Station for

¶16

the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

It is the case of the prosecution that on 4^th June, 2023,

¶18

the Applicant was apprehended by the police personnel on patrolling duty while he was there along with an injured lady. The lady was sent to the hospital for treatment, however she was

¶19

declared dead before admission. An offence came to be

¶20

1/3

¶21

13-ba5150-24.doc

¶22

registered against the Applicant for murder.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there is inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses as recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. She further argues that there is no evidence in order to indicate that the deceased is the wife of the Applicant. Inconsistency in the name of the Applicant is also sought to be argued.

¶24

Learned APP drew the attention of the Court to the postmortem note indicating that this is homicidal death. He further drew the attention of the Court to the evidence on record indicating Nikahnama between the Applicant and the deceased. He further drew the attention of the Court to the fact that there is recovery of blood stained clothes of the Applicant. For this evidence according to him indicates involvement of the Applicant in the crime.

¶25

Prima-facie this Court has to see as to whether any offence is made out of murder against the Applicant. It is not open for this Court to take into consideration the evidence led before the Trial Court, as it is a matter to be considered and

¶26

2/3

¶27

13-ba5150-24.doc

¶28

determined during the trial by the Trial Court. Any observations made by this Court on the evidence recorded before the Trial Court would amount to causing interference in the trial, which is wholly impermissible in law. Suffice it to say that prima-facie there is evidence to show involvement of the Applicant in the serious nature of crime. Hence no case is made out for grant of bail. The application is dismissed.

¶29

3/3

Abdul Salim Mohd Haroon Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salim Mohd Haroon Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pramila Kishor Motwani and Anr.. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The State of Maharashtra vs Namdeo Ramchandra Gholap

Rahulkumar Sureshchand Shukla (Minor) Thr Natural Guardian Sureshchand Harinarayan Shukla vs Chetan P. Shah Prop. of Deenal Enterprises and Anr.

Yusuf Anwar Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinbandhu @ Sanjay Jamun Sah vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Rajiv Pravin Mahato vs the State of Maharashtra