Mohd. Umar Yusuf Shaikh @ Salman vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

Mohd. Umar Yusuf Shaikh @ Salman vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both applicants ordered released on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal Nos.246 of 2020 and 973 of 2023 on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one or two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: good behaviour and no commission of offences; disclosure of prospective residential address and contact mobile/landline numbers before release; no entry into the jurisdiction of Meghwadi Police Station during the pendency of the trial; attendance at Sakinaka Police Station between 10:00 a.m. and 12 noon on the first Monday of every calendar month during the pendency of the appeals; violation of any condition liable to cancellation of bail. Interim Application No.4606 of 2025 (through jail) also stands disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants — convicted under Section 302 IPC, with Criminal Appeal Nos.246 of 2020 and 973 of 2023 pending — are entitled to release on bail solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration, in light of the categories of accused/convicts drawn by the Supreme Court in Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 17 SCC 446. +1 more

Court's answer

Both applicants fall within the second category of accused/convicts identified in the Supreme Court's judgment in Saudan Singh (incarceration exceeding ten years at one go), for which, per paragraph 8 of that judgment, bail can be granted unless there are extenuating circumstances against the persons concerned.

Ratio / Principle

On specific queries, counsel stated that the applicants have no criminal antecedents and the learned APP could not dispute this; accordingly the Court examined the applicability of the judgment in Saudan Singh (supra) to the facts of the present case.

Key takeaways

Since the applicants have no other criminal antecedents, their conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC is not, in itself, an extenuating circumstance; the APP's opposition based on the gravity of the offence therefore does not bar bail.ratio¶30
Adopting the Supreme Court's view, convicts whose appeals are pending and who have undergone long incarceration can be granted bail; a High Court cannot tell them that, owing to paucity of time, their appeals cannot be taken up for final hearing and they should continue to suffer incarceration.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted pending appeal — Applicants, original accused Nos.1 and 6 convicted under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.345 of 2014 (judgment dt. 27.03.2019, Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai), incarcerated since arrests on 22.01.2014 / 29.01.2014 — over 12 years — while Criminal Appeal Nos.246 of 2020 and 973 of 2023 pend — they fall in the second category of convicts under the Supreme Court's judgment in Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 17 SCC 446 (para 8: sentence over ten years at one go — bail unless extenuating circumstances) — no criminal antecedents (position undisputed by the APP) — gravity of the murder conviction per se held not to be an extenuating circumstance — a High Court cannot plead paucity of time to keep such convicts incarcerated — consistency noted with the Coordinate Bench grant of bail to co-accused No.2 (order dt. 31.07.2025, IA No.2578 of 2024) — Interim Applications allowed: release on P.R. Bond Rs.50,000/- each with one or two sureties; conditions include good behaviour, disclosure of address and contact numbers, exclusion from Meghwadi Police Station jurisdiction, and monthly first-Monday reporting at Sakinaka Police Station; violations attract cancellation of bail.

904_IA4498&4606_25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4498 OF 2025

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.246 OF 2020

Mohd. Umar Yusuf Shaikh @ Salman … Applicant In the matter between: Mohd. Umar Yusuf Shaikh @ Salman and another … Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.698 OF 2023

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.973 OF 2023

Mohd. Shafiq Mohd. Rafiq Khan @ Shafiq Patil … Applicant In the matter between: Mohd. Shafiq Mohd. Rafiq Khan @ Shafiq Patil … Appellant Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4606 OF 2025

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.973 OF 2023

Mr. Jagdish G. Shetty i/b. Mr. Ayub Shaikh for Applicant in IA/4498/2025. Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal (appointed through Legal Aid) for Applicant in IA/4606/ 2025 and IA/698/2023.

Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for Respondents - State.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : MARCH 07, 2026

P.C. :

. The applicants in these bail applications are original accused Nos.1 and 6. They have been convicted along with two co-accused

1/5

904_IA4498&4606_25.doc

persons as per judgement and order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.345 of 2014. The applicants were convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The learned counsel for the applicants are pursuing the prayers made in these applications only on the ground of the period of incarceration undergone by the applicants and the law laid down by the Supreme Court while dealing with such applications for bail wherein the applicants have remained behind bars for considerable periods of time.

It is submitted that co-accused No.2 was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 31.07.2025 passed in Interim Application No.2578 of 2024 ( Jamir Mohammadulla Shafiulla Sharif @ Jammo Vs. The State of Maharashtra ).

The learned counsel for the applicants rely upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2023) 17 SCC 446 , to contend that the Supreme Court in the said judgement has categorized the accused / convicts into various categories. The second category of cases pertains to persons who had suffered incarceration for more than 10 years during trial and during pendency of their appeals. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the said judgement indicated that bail could be granted to such accused persons unless there were any extenuating circumstances.

The learned APP submits that the present case concerns conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The applicants are found guilty of assaulting the victim in a violent manner and there is sufficient material to indicate that the Sessions Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the applicants. It is submitted that looking to the gravity of the offence, this Court may not grant bail to the applicants.

2/5

904_IA4498&4606_25.doc

We find that in the present case, on specific queries put to the learned counsel for the applicants, it is stated that the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. The said position could not be disputed by the learned APP. It is in these circumstances that we have examined applicability of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( supra ) to the facts of the present case.

The record shows that Mohd. Umar Yusuf Shaikh @ Salman (applicant in Interim Application No.4498 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2020) and Mohd. Shafiq Mohd. Rafiq Khan @ Shafiq Patil (applicant in Interim Application No.698 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2023) were arrested on 22.01.2014 and 29.01.2014 respectively. This shows that the actual period of imprisonment undergone by the said applicants is more than 12 years. Therefore, both the applicants indeed fall in the second category of accused / convicts as laid down by the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( supra) . Paragraph 8 of the said judgement specifically records that in such cases, where the accused / convicts have undergone sentence of more than ten years at one go, bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against the said persons.

Although the learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer in these applications on the ground of gravity of the offence, we find that since the applicants do not have any other criminal antecedents, the fact that they have been convicted for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, in itself, cannot be said to be an extenuating circumstance.

The Supreme Court has taken a view that such convicts whose appeals are pending can be granted bail when they have undergone such long periods of incarceration and they cannot be told by the High Court

3/5

904_IA4498&4606_25.doc

that since there is paucity of time and their appeals cannot be taken up for final hearing, they should continue to suffer incarceration.

In such circumstances, we are inclined to grant relief to the applicants. It is to be noted that when the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to the co-accused No.2 by the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2025, apart from discussing merits of the application of the said applicant, it was noted that the applicant therein had also remained behind bars since the date of his arrest.

In view of the above, the applications are allowed in the following terms:-

i) During the pendency of Criminal Appeal Nos.246 of 2020 and 973 of 2023, the applicants (original appellants in the appeals) are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with one or two sureties each in the like amount;

ii) During the bail period, the applicants shall be of good behaviour and shall not commit any offence;

iii) Before their release from jail, the applicants shall give their prospective residential addresses and the mobile and / or landline numbers on which they or their close relative can be contacted;

iv) The applicants shall not enter the jurisdiction of Meghwadi Police Station during the pendency of the trial;

v) The applicants shall attend Sakinaka Police Station between 10:00 a.m. and 12 noon on the first Monday of every calendar month, during the pendency of the appeals;

Needless to say, violation of any of the conditions will make the

4/5

904_IA4498&4606_25.doc

applicants liable for cancellation of bail.

Accordingly, Interim Application No.4606 of 2025 (through jail) also stands disposed of.

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signedby MINALSANDIP PARABDate: 2026.03.0717:39:13 +0530

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

Minal Parab

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

5/5