RAHUL VIRENDRA SHARMA @ RAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

WAKLE
MANOJ                 MANOJ                                               901-BA-1221-2026.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.09.07
19:14:15 +0530
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1221 OF 2026
                      Rahul Virendra Sharma @ Ram                         …Applicant
                              V/s.
                      The State of Maharashtra                            …Respondent


                      Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Chinmay Ghodse,
                      Mr.Rajan Gurnani, Adv. Kaustubh Salvi & Adv. Nikita Gawai i/b.
                      Mr. Rahul Arote, for the Applicant.
                      Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.
                      HC – Vinod Raut, Mira – Bhayander Police Station, Vasai-Virar,
                      present.


                                                CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                DATED : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
                      P.C. :-

                      1.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                      2.      The applicant seeks his release on bail in Cr.No. 232/2022
                      registered with Virar Police Station, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar
                      for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 212, 120B of the
                      Indian Penal Code; Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act; and
                      Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control
                      of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act”) on the report dated
                      26.02.2022 filed by Mr. Shashikant Vikramsingh Chauhan.

                      3.      The prosecution case is that since 2018, there was dispute
                      going on between deceased Samarjeet and Rahul Dubey (A8) and
                      others. Meanwhile, the growing dominance and business of
                      Samarjeet gave rise to his opponents in Virar area. It is alleged that
                      to wipe out that dominance, accused Rahul Dubey (A8), Rajkumar
                      Yadav (A3), Sham Yadav and Anurag Pandey (A6) came together
                      and hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. It

                                                     Page 1 of 5
MANOJ                                              901-BA-1221-2026.DOC



is alleged that, since 2021 these accused persons met with and
telephonically contacted one life convict Subhash Singh Thaker
from time to time and, gave the contract of killing the deceased
through said Subhash Singh Thakur. It is alleged that, as planned,
the accused persons could not commit the murder of the deceased
in June 2021. Therefore, in February, 2022 said convict Subhash
Singh Thakur gave a fresh contract of the murder to the applicant,
accused Manish Singh, Arjun Singh (A10) and Abhishek Singh (A2).
It is alleged that on 26.02.2022, the accused person did the rekkie
and, at about 13:30 hours, when the deceased was approaching to
his car near his office, accused Manish Singh fired at the deceased
and committed his murder and then, fled alongwith the applicant
on a bike. It is alleged that the accused persons also caused
disappearance of the evidence. Therefore, the accused were arrested
from time to time and finally, charge-sheeted.

4.      Mr. Pasbola, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant
submitted that, as alleged, accused Manish Singh-who shot the
deceased dead was driven to the spot on a motorbike by an
unknown person. The statements of the eye witnesses indicate that
the said bike-rider accused was wearing a helmet on his head and
his face was completely covered with a helmet. Therefore, they had
no reason to see his face. There is no evidence, on the basis of which
the police could have arrested the applicant and the eye witnesses
have identified him in the TIP as the same person who had driven
accused Manish Singh to the spot and then helped him fleeing away
on the bike. There is discrepancy about the colour of the bike and
the helmet which the bike rider was wearing. Therefore, the claim
of the eye witnesses that they had seen the applicant at/near the
spot and they identified him in the TIP, is not free from doubt.



                              Page 2 of 5
MANOJ                                                  901-BA-1221-2026.DOC



        Mr. Pasbola, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that
Abhishek Singh (A2) who did the rekkie of the deceased to facilitate
his murder, is released on bail. Even the other co-accused who
hatched the criminal conspiracy of the murder, have been granted
bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration as the prosecution is
going to examine more than 100 witnesses in the case. The
applicant is in jail for more than 4 years. Although, the charge is
framed on 07.01.2026, till the date, no prosecution witness has been
examined. Since the prosecution is going to examine more than 100
witnesses, it will certainly take some time. He submitted that the
applicant had following criminal antecedents, therein, he has been
acquitted. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail on merit and
on the principle of parity.

Sr.        Police Station          Cr.No. & Sections           Status
No.
  1     Nirmal Nagar Police      Cr. No. 220/2013
        Station, Mumbai.    U/S. 302, 324, 143, 149, 37,     Acquitted
                               212, 120B of IPC and
                             U/S. 3, 25, 27 of Arms Act
  2     Nirmal Nagar Police         Cr. No. 184/2013
        Station, Mumbai          U/S. 307, 34 of IPC and     Acquitted
                                U/S. 3, 25, 27 of Arms Act
  3     Miraroad       Police       Cr. No. 253/2015
        Station                 U/S. 302, 120B of IPC and    Acquitted
                                U/S. 3, 25, 27 of Arms Act


5.      In reply, Mr. Dedhia, the learned APP has submitted that,
there is sufficient material against the applicant that, as a part of the
criminal conspiracy, the applicant rode accused Manish Singh on
his bike up-to the spot and as soon as he fired at the deceased, the
applicant rode him on his bike and fled from the spot. Therefore,
and having regard to the fact that this is a case of contract killing,
the bail may be refused.


                                Page 3 of 5
MANOJ                                                901-BA-1221-2026.DOC



6.      I have considered these submissions and perused the record.
The statement of certain witnesses show that just about 10 minutes
prior to the murder they had seen the applicant and accused Manish
Singh standing near a bike, near the spot of the murder. A red
helmet was hanging on the handle of that bike. The report lodged by
the informant clearly mentions that immediately after firing
gunshots at the deceased, accused Manish Singh fled on the bike
and at that time, the bike-rider was wearing a helmet. The
description of the clothes of the applicant given in the statements of
the eye-witnesses is matching with the CCTV footage of the said
accused. Even the colour of the helmet is matching. No doubt,
according to the witnesses, the bike was black and the helmet was
gray in colour. However, it may be because in the CCTV footage, the
bike and the helmet colour appears black and gray due to sun-light.
Yet, on a close and careful observation of the CCTV footage, it can
be easily perceived that the bike and the helmet both were of red
colour. In this background, it cannot be maintained that the
applicant was not seen by the eye witnesses before and after the
incident. In fact, there is sufficient direct and circumstantial
evidence to establish the identity of the applicant as the accused
who had rode the deceased on his bike before and after the murder.

7.      In so far as the principle of parity is concerned, no doubt, the
co-accused who had hatched the conspiracy to commit the murder
have been released on bail including the one who did the rekkie. In
the following cited cases, the appellant/accused before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court have been released on bail on the ground of
prolonged incarceration of four years or so and the prosecution was
to examine many witnesses which was to take considerable time.
Surendra s/o. Fattu Pipardhare v/s. Criminal Application (BA) No.862
State of Maharashtra                of 2024


                                Page 4 of 5
MANOJ                                                 901-BA-1221-2026.DOC



Ranjana Tanaji Wanve v/s.             Petition(s) for Special Leave to
The State of Maharashtra              Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12740/2024.
Balwinder Singh v/s. State of Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Punjab and Anr.               Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8523/2024.

        However, in the case in hand, the role of the applicant is
different than his co-accused. Secondly, till date no witnesses is
examined by the prosecution. In the cited cases, to some extent, the
facts were different; two matters were part heard and in one case no
charge was framed, therefore and, having regard to the period of
incarceration opposite to the prosecution witnesses to be examined
in the cases, bail was granted. Therefore, in my considered view,
until the eye witnesses are examined, it would not be proper to
release the applicant on bail on the ground of prolonged
incarceration and applying the principle of parity.

8.      In view of above discussion, at this stage, the applicant is not
entitled for bail. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected
and is rejected, accordingly.

9.      Having regard to the period of the incarceration, the
applicant will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the
trial Court after the eye witnesses are examined or after one year
from today if the prosecution fails to examine the eye witnesses.

10.     It is clarified that the observation made in the present Order
and rejection of the prayer for the bail will not be treated as findings
on the merit of the case.

11.     Bail Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms.




                                (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)


                                Page 5 of 5