Bombay High Court
AMAN MUSTAK SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to Accused No.3 subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on behalf of Accused No.3 in a case involving murder, attempted murder, criminal conspiracy and other offences. The applicant was indicted primarily on two eyewitness statements recorded a month after the incident, with the first statement not naming him and the second merely placing him at the scene. The counsel highlighted the applicant's clean antecedent record, his young age (23), and the lack of any CCTV or specific role attribution by witnesses. The court noted that the prosecution's evidence was prima facie and that the applicant had been in custody for over two years, deeming continued detention disproportionate. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a cash bond, surety, reporting requirements, and other standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- What is the adequacy of the evidentiary basis (delayed eyewitness statements) for denying bail to Accused No.3?
- Whether the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's personal circumstances warrant the grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC and Section 483 B.N.S.?
- Whether the applicant's lack of antecedents and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail with conditions.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 135
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 25, 4
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- murder
- attempt to murder
- criminal conspiracy
- unlawful assembly
- arms seizure
- juvenile accused
- evidentiary delay
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
4.BA.3296.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3296 OF 2026
Aman Mustak Shaikh .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w. Mr. Devanand Bhosale, Advocates for
Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhwa, APP for Respondent.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Khan, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.298 of 2023
registered with Upnagar Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 307, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860; Section 135 of the Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4 and 25 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
3. Applicant in the present case is arraigned as Accused No.3.
There are total 5 Accused persons and one juvenile person who are
arraigned as Accused. The incident took place on 22.07.2023 in the
shop of the Complainant where the deceased was employed. The
1 of 4
4.BA.3296.2026.doc
witness statement recorded by the prosecution prima facie shows that
the juvenile had specifically informed the witness - Vishal Shyam
Shelke, whose statement is appended at page No.193 that the
deceased was eliminated due to extrading revenge by Accused Nos. 1,
2 and 4 and one Bala Desle.
4. Insofar as the indictment of the Applicant – Accused No.3 is
concerned, Ms. Khan submits that he has been indicted on the basis of
two eyewitness statements which have been recorded one month after
the date of the incident. She would submit that the first eyewitness
statement appended at page No.262 wherein Accused No.3 has not
been named. However only on the basis of the second eyewitness
statement, copy of which is appended at page No.282, the eyewitness
mentions the presence of the Applicant i.e. Accused No.3 at the
incident site.
5. She would submit that Accused No.3 has no antecedents and
merely on the basis of a witness statement he has been indicted. On
the issue of recovery, she would submit that two scythes (dks;rk) have
been recovered from the juvenile Accused and Accused No.1.
6. She would submit that eyewitnesses to the incident do not
attribute any specific role to the Accused nor any CCTV footage shows
the the Accused having being involved.
2 of 4
4.BA.3296.2026.doc
7. Accused being a young person of 23 years has been in
prolonged incarceration for 2 years 2 months and in that view of the
matter, in view of the aforesaid prima facie observations emanating
from the record, the Applicant is granted bail subject to following
conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with Crime No. 298 of 2023;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
Thosand only) with one surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the
concerned Police Station, once every month on the first
Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) 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 revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses
3 of 4
4.BA.3296.2026.doc
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and /
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
8. 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
hereinabove in this order.
9. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.29
15:19:30 +0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…