Bombay High Court
SAMIR LUKMAN SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court allowed the appeal and granted regular bail to the appellant with stringent conditions.
Summary
The appellant, Samir Lukman Shaikh, was charged under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the murder of Ravi, who died from a head injury inflicted with a floor tile. The appellant argued that he did not bring a weapon to the scene, that the assault began with fists and kicks, and that the single blow with the tile did not demonstrate pre‑meditated intent to kill. The prosecution contended that the head injury was sufficient to cause death, that a monetary dispute provided motive, and that the appellant might tamper with witnesses if released on bail. The trial court had denied bail, but on appeal the High Court examined the evidence, noting the lack of pre‑meditation and the appellant's clean record, and found that bail could be secured with appropriate conditions. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted regular bail with strict conditions restricting the appellant's movement and contact with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the appellant despite the serious nature of the murder charge.
- Whether the facts establish pre‑meditation and intention to kill under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the appellant tampering with witnesses or fleeing if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- premeditation
- intention to kill
- SC/ST Act
- criminal procedure
- witness tampering
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46469
51-APEAL-264-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
51 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2026
Samir Lukman Shaikh
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
Mr. Rahul R. Karpe a/w Mr. S. S. Pawar, Advocate for Appellant (VC)
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No. 1
Mr. N. B. Patekar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE :OCTOBER 05, 2026
P. C. :
1. Appellant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No. 0962
of 2025 registered with Kotwali Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Ahilyanagar for
the offences punishable under Section 109(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352 and
103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The first information report indicates that an incident had
occurred on 17-10-2025 in which deceased Ravi was assaulted by Appellant
with floor tile on his head. Deceased succumbed to the said injury on 23-10-
2025. Initially, offense came to be registered against the Appellant of
attempt to commit murder and later on, offense of murder came to be
attributed against him.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant
Page 1 of 4
51-APEAL-264-2026.odt
had not gone to the spot with weapon, which indicates that Appellant had
no intention to kill the deceased. According to him, there is no eyewitness to
the incident and there are statement of witnesses to the effect that deceased
himself had informed them about the manner in which the incident had
occurred. According to him, this shows that it was a case wherein the
deceased was assaulted with fists and kick blows initially and in the fit of
movement, tile lying at the spot was used for assaulting his head once. It is
his submission that having regard to the nature of assault also, it cannot be
said that the Appellant had intention to kill deceased. He claims that
Appellant has no criminal history behind him and is not likely to flee from
justice.
4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the Informant opposed
grant of any relief to the Appellant by referring to the post mortem notes as
well as the statement of witnesses. According to them, the assault caused on
the head of the deceased was sufficient to cause his death as reflected from
the cause of death mentioned in the post mortem notes. It is their
submission that there was dispute over the money involved, which provided
the motive for the Appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Learned
Counsel for the Informant, apart from above submissions, apprehends that
in case the Appellant is enlarged on bail, he is likely to pressure witnesses
and interfere in the evidence of the prosecution as he is residing in the same
Page 2 of 4
51-APEAL-264-2026.odt
area.
In response to the same, learned Counsel for the Appellant, on
instruction, makes statement that Appellant will not enter the jurisdiction of
the concerned police station till conclusion of the trial if he is enlarged on
bail.
5. Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that an incident had
occurred on 17-10-2025 in which there was a quarrel between the Appellant
and deceased Ravi. As per the narration of the deceased to the witnesses,
the assault was initially caused with fists and kick blows and later on the tile
lying at the spot was used to cause a single blow on his head. This
contention of the witnesses gets support from the post mortem notes.
Though there are other injuries attributable to the fist and kick blows, the
cause of death is on account of head injury, which is one in number. This
Court finds substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the
Appellant that the Appellant has not gone to the spot with weapon, which
shows that he had no premeditation to kill the deceased. His further
submission to the effect that single injury on the head also indicates that
there being no intention of the Appellant to kill the deceased.
6. Now charge-sheet has been filed on conclusion of the
investigation. There is no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short
period of time. This Court, therefore, finds no justification in rejecting the
Page 3 of 4
51-APEAL-264-2026.odt
appeal. Presence of the appellant can be secured by imposing appropriate
conditions. Hence, the order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Appellant in connection with Crime No. 0962/2025 registered
with Kotwali Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Ahilyanagar for the
offences punishable under Section 109(1), 115(2), 351(3),
352 and 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, shall be released on bail on
furnishing PB and SB of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand
Only) with one surety in the like amount.
(iii) As volunteered, he shall not enter the jurisdiction of
concerned police station till conclusion of trial, except
attending dates before trial Court.
(iv) He shall attend the each dates of hearing before Trial Court
unless exempted.
(v) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(vi) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(vii) Bail before Trial Court.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…