NIKHIL MANEKJI CHANDAL@ NIKHIL MANAKJI CHANDALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

P.H. JAYANI                       906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3761 OF 2025

Aayush Sanjay Pandey                                      …. Applicant
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                 …Respondent

                              WITH
                 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1512 OF 2026

Nikhil Manekji Chandal @ Nikhil                           …. Applicant
Manakji Chandal
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                 …Respondent

                              WITH
                 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1526 OF 2026

Uday Sanjay Bali                                          …. Applicant
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                 …Respondent


Mr. Veerdhawal Kakade for the Applicant in BA/3761/2025.
Mr. Prashant Pandey a/w. Mr. Dinesh Jadhwani, Ms. Riddhima
Mangaonkar and Ms. Neha Balani i/b. W3 Legal LLP for the
Applicant in BA/1512/2026 and in BA/1526/2026.
Mr. Vinit Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Sanjay Marathe, PI, IO, present.


                            CORAM:        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                            DATED :       23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C. :-

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

2.        The applicants (original Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively)
seek their release on bail in Sessions Case No.121/2022 pending


                                 Page 1 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                        906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC



on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court,
Borivali Division, Dindoshi. Said case arises out of Crime No.
891/2021 registered with Dahisar Police Station, Mumbai for the
offences punishable under Sections 452, 396, 397, 109, 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 3, 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections
37(1)(a) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 on the Report
dated 30.06.2021 lodged by Mr. Dhiraj B. Pandey.

3.       The prosecution case is that on 30.06.2021, at about 10:30
a.m., three unknown persons entered in M/s. Sai Jewellers, at
Dahisar (“the shop), caused murder of Shailendra Pandey–the
shop owner, firing two bullets at him and robbed gold ornaments
worth Rs.10 Lakhs. Said incident was recorded in the CCTV
installed that shop. Therefore, said crime came to be registered.
Police arrested the applicants from, Surat, Gujarat. On the same
day A4 and A5 were arrested.

         During   interrogation,    A1–Aayush     made    a   disclosure
statement leading to recovery of 4 stolen ornaments weighing
about 5 tolas, and clothes of A1 to A3, which they had their person
at the time of the incident. Two empty cartridges and shell of a
bullet were found in the pant of A2, recovered by A1. Additionally,
A1 recovered the motorbike which was used by the these accused
to flee away after commission of the crime. Insofar as A2–Nikhil is
concerned, his disclosure statement led to pointing out the
swampy nullah, where he had allegedly thrown the firearm used in
the crime. As alleged, after arresting A3–Uday when he was
brought to the police station, a firearm, 4 live cartridges and one
stolen gold ornament were seized from his possession under arrest
panchanama. 25 stolen gold ornaments (total 13 tolas) were
recovered from A4, who was the alleged mastermind of this crime.


                               Page 2 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                     906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC



2 stolen gold ornaments were recovered from A5. It was followed
by arrest of A6 and A7, but, there is no recovery from them. The
TIP was successful against Accused Nos. 2 and 3. On completion
of investigation, all seven accused stood charge-sheeted. The bail
applications of A1 to A3 met with rejection from the trial Court.
Hence, these applications.

4.       Mr. Kakade and Mr. Pandey, the learned Advocates for the
respective applicants have submitted that admittedly, all these
applicants had entered in the shop with their faces partly masked
like in COVID-19 condition. There was no possibility of their faces
getting sufficiently captured in the CCTV footage nor seen by the
witnesses concerned including witness – Karna Bharwad.
Therefore, the FSL report mentions that the faces of these
applicants are similar to the faces of the offenders seen in the
CCTV footage. The two bullets retrieved from the body of the
deceased are not conclusively opined to be fired by the weapon
recovered from A3. The TIP was conducted on 12.08.2021, i.e.,
after 40 days of the arrest of A1 to A3. Although witness Karna
Bharwad identified A1 before the Court, he could not identify him
(A1) during the TIP. Therefore, identification of A1 to A3 before
the trial Court by the same witness is not reliable. They submitted
that since prima facie it is not shown that the fire arm allegedly
recovered by A3 is one of the weapons of the offence, the recovery
of other articles is also not reliable. They submitted that these
accused are in jail for more than 5 years. Their co-accused
including A4–the master mind of the crime has been released on
bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration as the trial had not
advanced. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for bail on merit
as well as applying the principle of parity.



                              Page 3 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                     906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC



5.       In reply, Mr. Kulkarni, the learned APP reproduced the
prosecution case as aforestated. In short, Mr. Kulkarni has
submitted that there is an overwhelming direct and circumstantial
evidence against the applicants which made out a strong prima
facie case against them of having committed the present offence in
association with their co-accused. He submitted that the role
attributed to these applicants is different than their co-accused.
Therefore, according to him this is not a case for bail.

6.       I have considered these submissions. The bank statements
on record indicate that, the fire arms used in the offence were
purchased      through   accused    Pramod    Dube.    Statement    of
Rushikumar Sharma indicates that accused - Banti had booked the
tickets for A1 to A3 to travel from Pithampur (MP) to Mumbai.
The material on record indicate that, on 29.06.2021, A4 had taken
the co-accused persons in his Honda City Car and visited the Idali
Dosa shop of witness Joseph Nadar. At that time, said witness had
seen A4 and accused - Ankit Mahadik. Mr. Paresh Sahu, owner of
the scooter, had filed a report of theft of his scooter on 29.06.2021
from Dahisar police area. On the same day, recce of the shop was
done by A4 and he had showed that shop to A1 to A3.

         At the time of the incident, certain witnesses were present
near the shop of the incident. Cumulatively, their statement
indicate that on 30.06.2021, at about 10.10 hrs., Ayush Pande (A1)
was seen parking his scooter at an ATM centre, which was near the
jewellery shop. Witness Prakash Rao had seen these accused
persons on 30.06.2021, at about 10.15 hrs., when they were talking
with each other, standing near his wine shop. When witness
Jitendra Panchal was withdrawing money from the ATM centre,
he had heard noise of bursting cracker. Further, he had seen these


                               Page 4 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                     906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC



three accused persons fleeing on a scooter. Witness Mr. Karna
Bharvad also had seen A2 and A3 coming out of the jewellery shop
and then, the three accused persons fleeing away on the scooter,
which was with A1. Witness Prakash Rao had also seen A1, while
blowing the scooter horn and then A2 and A3 coming out of the
jewellery shop, sitting on the scooter and fleeing away. Witness
Mohannath Yadav had seen the three, while fleeing away on the
scooter. Witness Pramod Dube had recorded a video of A1 while
he was blowing the horn and fleeing when A2 and A3 came there.

         Witness Lavkant Ojha has stated that, after committing the
robbery, A1 to A4 visited him at his place in Barbodhan village,
District Surat, as he was acquainted with A1. Then, the four
requested Lavkant Ojha to help them in selling the stolen gold
ornaments.

          The mobile phone recovered from A1 belongs to his father
whereas the mobile phones recovered by A2 and A3 belong to
them. The CDR and SDR of these mobile phones indicate that at
the relevant time these accused were in contact with each other
and they had come to the location of the jewellery shop on 29 th and
30th June.

         The CCTV footage in question is examined by the expert. He
opined that certain characteristics of these applicants are similar
to the characteristics of the offenders seen in the CCTV footage.
There is recovery of clothes of all the accused persons from A1. All
these clothes are tallying with the CCTV footage. There is recovery
of gold ornaments and firearm, etc. as stated above. Police had no
reason to foist these articles against the accused persons and
falsely book them in this case. Therefore, the discrepancy pointed


                               Page 5 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                       906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC



about in the ballistic expert’s Report is not sufficient to doubt the
involvement of the applicants in this case.

7.       Thus, there is a prima facie case against the applicants.

8.       At present, only PW1 is examined and he is part heard.
Considering the facts of the case, the release of the applicant may
result in pressuring the aforesaid material witnesses and panchas
to prevent them from deposing in favour of the prosecution.

9.       No doubt, the period of incarceration of these applicants is
more than the co-accused persons who have been released on bail
on the ground of prolonged incarceration. However, what
distinguishes their case is the act of executing the actual
conspiracy to commit the present offence by cool-headedly
murdering the deceased and looting his shop. Therefore, till the
examination of the aforesaid material witnesses, the ground of
prolonged incarceration will be of no avail to the applicants.

10.      In view of the above discussion, none of the applicants is
entitled for bail. As a result, the Bail Applications are rejected.

11.      By way of an abundant caution it is clarified that any
observation made in the present Order are for the purpose of
deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the
outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.

12.      The trial Court is requested to expedite the trial.
Considering the fact that four accused are released on bail, liberty
is given to the applicants to renew their prayer for bail after a
period of nine months if there is no advancement in the trial.


                                Page 6 of 7
              P.H. JAYANI                     906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC



              13.      Since this Court was shown the alleged CCTV footage of the
              incident and till the date, it is not provided to the accused persons,
              the prosecution is directed to provide a copy of the said CCTV
              footage to each accused within three days from today.




                                              (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
       Digitally
       signed by
       PREETI
PREETI HEERO
HEERO JAYANI
JAYANI Date:
       2026.10.03
       17:26:00
       +0530




                                             Page 7 of 7