Bombay High Court

VIKAS SINGH @ BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH CHAKODIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 24 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

Bail was granted as the only evidence against the applicant was the co‑accused statements and criminal antecedents do not, by themselves, warrant denial of bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Vikas Singh, accused of murder, criminal conspiracy, and illegal possession of arms under IPC sections 307, 34, 120B, 181 and Arms Act section 25(1)(A). The prosecution’s case rested solely on the confessional statements of two co‑accused who alleged that Singh supplied the firearm and ammunition, and on Singh’s prior criminal record. Singh’s counsel argued that no other admissible evidence linked him to the offences, a point conceded by the respondent. The Court held that criminal antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail when the substantive evidence against the applicant is limited to co‑accused statements. Consequently, the Court ordered Singh’s release on bail subject to a bond, sureties, and several conditions, and directed the trial to be expedited.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be denied solely on the basis of the applicant's criminal antecedents in the absence of substantive evidence beyond co‑accused statements.
Whether the statements of co‑accused persons are sufficient to justify refusal of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1)(A)
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 181, 307, 34

Subjects

bail
criminal antecedents
murder
conspiracy
Arms Act
evidentiary insufficiency
trial delay

Judgment

P.H. JAYANI 921 BA2611.2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2611 OF 2026

Vikas Singh @ Brijesh Kumar Singh Chakodi …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Mr. Aakash Desai a/w. Ms. Kiara Alves for the Applicant.
Ms. Kranti Hiwrale, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Vijendra Ambavade, PI, Mira-Bhayander Police Station,
present.

CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C. :-

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

2. Present application seeking release of the applicant on bail
in connection with Cr.No.120/2003 registered with Mira Road
Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections
307, 34, 120B and 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)
(A) of the Arms Act on the report dated 20.06.2003 filed by Ravi
Laldhari Yadav.

3. In brief, the prosecution story is that, the informant – Ravi
Yadav was working as a driver with Lallan Tiwari. The latter was
running an educational institute and also doing the business at
Bhayander. On 20.06.2003, at about 04.50 p.m., at Mira Road,
the two unknown persons approached Lallan Tiwari and, one of
them fired at him. Thereafter, the said assailants were chased and
caught with the help of the police. On inquiry, they gave their
names as Chandu Singh and Nitin Jha. A Katta and three
cartridges were seized from Chandu Singh and a pistol loaded with

Page 1 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 921 BA2611.2026.DOC

cartridges and 30 live cartridges were seized from Nitin Jha.
During investigation, police arrested the other accused persons
and filed the charge-sheet. It is the case of the prosecution that
the applicant had supplied the pistol and Katta to the co-accused
persons to kill the injured by hatching a criminal conspiracy, on
account of certain monetary dispute with co-accused Arvind
Updhyay, who is son of the injured’s business partner Ramdular
Updhyay. It is alleged that, since the time of the incident, the
applicant was absconding. Therefore, police arrested the applicant
and, filed supplementary charge-sheet. The trial court declined to
release the applicant on bail in view of his role in this crime and, 11
criminal antecedents of cognizable offences and 7 non-cognizable
offences.

4. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that
except the confessional statement of accused nos.1 and 2 that the
firearms were supplied by the applicant, there is no other evidence
to prosecute the applicant for this crime. This fact is conceded by
Ms. Hiwrale, the learned APP. However, she submitted that
having regard to the criminal antecedents of the applicant, said
information given by accused nos. 1 and 2 cannot be brushed aside
at this stage and according to her, it is sufficient to deny the bail.

5. The aforesaid submissions evince that except the statement
by the co-accused persons that the firearms in question were
supplied by the applicant, there is no other admissible evidence
against the applicant. Therefore, merely because of the criminal
antecedents, the bail relief cannot be denied in this case. Hence,
following Order :-

(i) The applicant - Vikas Singh @ Brijesh Kumar Singh
Chakodi be released on bail in Cr.No.120/2003 registered

Page 2 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 921 BA2611.2026.DOC

with Mira Road Police Station, Mumbai for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 34, 120B and 181 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act,
on his executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with one or more sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Mira Road
Police Station, Mumbai on 1st day of a month, between 11:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
for which he has been arraigned in this case.

(v) The applicant shall not leave Mumbai for a period of
six months.

(vi) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence the
prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against him.

(vii) On being released from jail, the applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in case
there is any change.

(viii) 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

Page 3 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 921 BA2611.2026.DOC

trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.

6. Since the case is more than 20 years old, the trial Court is
requested to expedite the trial. The prosecution shall take all
efforts to produce the witnesses for expeditious disposal of the
case. The applicant shall co-operate for the same.

7. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

Digitally
signed by
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
PREETI
PREETI HEERO
HEERO JAYANI
JAYANI Date:
2026.09.28
19:35:55
+0530

Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…