Bombay High Court
ROHIT SANTOSH BHALSHANKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Rohit Santosh Bhalshankar, accused No.3 in a case of assault that resulted in the death of Mohammed Shami Firoz Qureshi. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with two others, assaulted the victim in a barber shop, but medical evidence was inconclusive as to whether the injuries caused the death. Eyewitness statements from the victim’s brother and the shop landlord were inconsistent, and the court noted the absence of pre‑meditation, weapon use, or intent to murder on the part of the applicant. The applicant, a 24‑year‑old with no prior criminal record, was shown to have a limited role in the fight. Weighing these factors, the court granted bail with a cash bond of Rs.25,000 and a series of conditions, while expressly reserving its right to address the merits of the case at trial.
Issues considered
- What is the applicant's entitlement to bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita given the nature of the offences (Sections 103(1) and 3(5))?
- Does the inconclusive medical evidence and inconsistent eyewitness testimony affect the likelihood of the applicant's conviction and thus bail eligibility?
- Are there sufficient grounds to believe the applicant may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, warranting bail conditions?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 492
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- assault causing death
- Section 103
- Section 3
- Section 492
- eyewitness testimony
- medical evidence
- pre‑meditation
Judgment
BA.3217.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3217 OF 2026
Rohit Santosh Bhalshankar .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Priyal G. Sarda a/w. Seema S. Dighe and Abhishek Jare. Advocates
for Applicant.
Yogesh M. Nakhwa. APP for Respondent – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 17, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Sarda learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Nakhwa learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. The Applicant is Accused No.3 in CR No.35 of 2026
registered in Bibwewadi Police Station, Pune for offenses punishable
under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
along with 2 other accused persons.
3. Prosecution case is that on 19.02.2026 between 12 noon and
12:30 p.m. deceased victim Mohammed Shami Firoz Qureshi was
confronted by Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in his barber shop on the pretext
of him luring and calling the customers of Accused No.1. Prior thereto,
deceased victim was working in the barber shop of Accused No.1 but
1 of 5
BA.3217.2026.doc
later on established his own barber shop. Due to the animosity,
Accused No.1 had a heated argument with the deceased victim and
slapped him on his face. The deceased victim retaliated by slapping the
Accused No.1 in return. Accused Nos.2 and 3 who were accompanying
the Accused No.1 intervened and inflicted fist and kick blows on the
deceased victim. The landlord of the barber shop which belonged to
the deceased also intervened and attempted to pacify the parties.
4. The entire incident lasted for about one hour during which
the Applicant is accused of participating in the beating of the deceased
victim by fist and kick blows along with other co - accused. Eventually
the victim received several injuries and on admission to the hospital
was declared dead. Medical evidence is prima facie incomplete and
inconclusive as to whether the cause of death was due to the assault or
otherwise.
5. Prosecution case is based upon the First Informant’s Report
filed by the brother of the deceased who was present throughout the
incident in the shop. His statement is appended at page No.22.
Prosecution has also relied upon the statement of the landlord of the
barber shop of the deceased who had intervened. His statement is
appended at page No.72 which is recorded on the following day. Both
of them are eyewitnesses to the incident, however there is material
difference between what both of them have stated. The only
2 of 5
BA.3217.2026.doc
commonality is that the fight had erupted between the erstwhile
employer (Accused No.1) of the deceased victim and the deceased.
6. During the quarrel a huge crowd had gathered outside the
barber shop. The specific role attributed to the Applicant who is
arraigned as Accused No.3 is of inflicting fist blows and kicks on the
deceased. Prima facie from the record it is borne out that there is no
premeditation for committing the offence, no weapon was used, no
intention was either there to commit murder and the motive is ascribed
and directed only to the Accused No.1 and not to the Applicant.
Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents either and is 24
years old.
7. In view of the above Mr. Sarda has made out a case for grant
of bail for the Applicant in view of the role attributed as also no
intention on his part to commit the offence.
8. Hence, Bail Application is allowed subject to the following
terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount;
(ii) Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of
Rs.25,000/- for his release immediately and file undertaking
3 of 5
BA.3217.2026.doc
that he will provide one or two sureties in the like amount of
Rs.25,000/- within a period of four weeks after his release
which shall be accepted by the Trial Court. Applicant shall
provide sureties as directed;
(iii) Before his actual release from jail, Applicant shall
furnish his address where he proposes to reside after his
release from jail to the concerned Police Station and also to
the trial Court;
(iv) After his release from jail, Applicant shall report to the
Investigating Officer as and when called for;
(v) Applicant shall attend the trial Court on first Tuesday of
every month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. to mark his
presence. If the first Tuesday of the said month falls on a
holiday and / or non Court working day, the Applicant shall
mark presence on the next working day;
(vi) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the trial Court on all dates unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments,
if he does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for
cancellation of this order;
(vii) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
4 of 5
BA.3217.2026.doc
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(viii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner; and
(ix) In case of any infraction of the above conditions and /
or two consecutive defaults in marking his attendance
before trial Court, it shall attract the provisions of Section
492 of BNSS i.e. for cancellation of bail.
9. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made herein
above in this order.
10. Bail Application is allowed and disposed.
Digitally signed
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
by RAVINDRA
MOHAN
RAVINDRA AMBERKAR
MOHAN
Ajay AMBERKAR
Date:
2026.08.18
11:09:05
+0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…