Bombay High Court

MOSIN SHAIKH MAJIT SHAIKH MAJIT AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The court held that bail should be granted as the death was due to septicemia, not the injuries, and the appellants had no criminal history.

Summary

The appellants were charged with assault and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after allegedly beating the father of an informant, who later died of septicemia. The appellants sought regular bail, arguing lack of prior criminal record and that a similar accused had been granted bail in a recent case. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the atrocities and the alleged murder‑like nature of the assault. The court examined the post‑mortem report, finding that death was not directly caused by the injuries but by septicemia, and noted the appellants’ clean record. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and granted bail with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act given the seriousness of the alleged assault and death.
Whether the cause of death (septicemia) negates an inference of intent to murder, affecting bail eligibility.
Whether precedent of granting bail to a similarly placed accused warrants similar relief.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 3(5), 351(1), 351(2), 352
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
SC/ST Act
assault
homicide
septicemia
scheduled castes
scheduled tribes
intent to murder

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:34132
950-APEAL-574-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2026

1. Mosin Shaikh Majit Shaikh Majit
2. Matin Sk. S/o. Suleman Sk.
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
...
Mr. P. P. More, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent – State
Mr. M. N. Kalyane, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
...

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE : AUGUST 06, 2026

P. C. :

1. Appellants seek regular bail in connection with Crime No.

170/2025, registered with Mahur Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the

offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 352, 351(1), 351(2), 3(5) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. First informant Mahadev reported incident occurred on

22.09.2025 in which, present Appellants and co-accused assaulted the father

of the informant on the ground that he questioned them about causing

damage to the crop. In the said incident, they assaulted him with fists and

kicks blows on his chest and stomach. Eye-witness tot he incident has tried

to rescue the victim however, he was also assaulted by the Appellants and

Page 1 of 3
950-APEAL-574-2026.odt

others. Due to said assault, on 02.10.2025, the victim died. Offence came to

be registered thereafter on 04.10.2025.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that similarly placed

accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2026 in

Criminal Appeal No. 406/2026. It is his submission that Appellants have no

criminal history behind them. According to him, in the facts of the case, on

parity Appellants are entitled for bail.

4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the informant opposed

grant of bail firstly on the ground that offences under Atrocities Act are

made applicable to the Appellants and secondly that the offence is serious in

nature. They drew attention of the Court to the charge-sheet as well as

observations made by the Special Judge while rejecting bail application of

the Appellants.

5. Prima facie perusal of the First Information Report indicates

that the incident had occurred on the issue that the deceased questioned the

Appellants and others about causing damage to the crops. This Court finds

prima facie substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the

Appellants that in the incident in question since fists and kicks blows are

given to the deceased, it would be difficult to attribute intention of murder

against the Appellants. Moreover, post mortem notes indicate that death has

not been caused due to injuries caused to the deceased but the deceased

Page 2 of 3
950-APEAL-574-2026.odt

died on account of septicemia. Though learned APP drew attention of the

court to Clause (b) of Column No. 23 of post mortem notes indicating that

injury nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are sufficient in ordinary course to case, however,

the opinion or probable cause of death is not said injuries but death is due

to septicemia. Having regard to these facts and the fact that Appellants have

no criminal history behind them, this Court finds it a fit case to enlarge

them on bail. Hence the following order :-

ORDER

(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(ii) Appellants be released on bail in connection with Crime No.
170/2025, registered with Mahur Police Station, Dist.
Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1),
352, 351(1), 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and
Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on furnishing
PB of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) each with one
or two sureties in the like amount.

(iii) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iv) They shall attend each and every date of trial unless
exempted by the Trial Court.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani

Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…