Bombay High Court

AAMIR CHINYA AASIR KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 17 August 2026
Disposal: Rejected

Holding

The bail application is dismissed; the applicant is not entitled to bail.

Summary

The applicant, Aamir Chinya Aasir Khan, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for offences including murder, attempt to murder, and several IPC and MCOC provisions. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, injury certificates, and seized weapons linking the applicant to the assault with a screwdriver that caused grievous injuries. The defence argued lack of direct identification, alleged misattribution of the screwdriver, and the applicant's long pre‑trial incarceration as grounds for bail. The court examined the seriousness of the gang‑related crime, the applicant's extensive prior criminal record, and the risk of tampering with witnesses. Concluding that the applicant’s role was clearly established and that his release would pose a threat to society, the court denied the bail application.

Issues considered

The adequacy of evidence linking the applicant to the assault with a screwdriver
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail
Risk of witness tampering or further gang violence if bail is granted
Whether the length of pre‑trial incarceration warrants bail on humanitarian grounds

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 4(25)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 143, 147, 149, 302, 307, 326, 341, 506
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 83(2)
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1)(3)

Subjects

bail
organized crime
gang violence
MCOC
IPC
Section 439
pre‑trial detention
witness tampering
prior convictions

Judgment

34.BA.3494.2025.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO.3494 OF 2025

Aamir Chinya Aasir Khan .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
 Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ayush Pasbola, Mr.
Rajan Gurnani, Mr. Nagraj Tarde, Mr. Manthan A. Chaudhari,
Advocates for Applicant.
 Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.
 API – Shendage, Samarth Police Station, Pune.
...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 17, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Pasbola, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant

and Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent – State.

2. This is an Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking Bail in connection with

C.R. No.218 of 2023 registered with Samarth Police Station for

offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 341, 506, 120-B,

143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 37(1)(3) read

with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951; Section 7 of

Criminal Law Amendment Act, Sections 83(2) of Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and under Sections 3(1)(i)(ii),

3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,

1999 (for short ‘MCOC Act’).

1 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

3. Present Application is filed by Applicant seeking enlargement

on bail and primarily apart from the merits Mr. Pasbola has argued

suspension of sentence on the ground of long incarceration. The

Applicant is arrested on 15.03.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed and

the case is pending before the Special Court under MCOC Act being

Special Case No.716 of 2022. Mr. Pasbola has candidly informed the

Court that previous Bail Application preferred by the Applicant was

rejected on 11.07.2025. He would submit that there is no possibility of

the trial being completed in the near future and that the Applicant is

ready to abide stringently to any terms and conditions set by Court for

enlargement on bail. He would request the Court to consider that

Prosecution case against the Applicant is that he assaulted the victim

with a screw driver but there is a clear dichotomy with regard to the

witness statements recorded by prosecution to bring home the alleged

charges against the Applicant. He would submit that allegation of

Applicant assaulting the deceased victim is infact levelled against other

accused persons and not the Applicant. He would draw my attention to

the statement of the prosecution witness, namely, Ilias Abdul Qureshi,

copy of which is appended at page No.298 and contend that it clearly

shows that the Applicant had not procured the said screw driver or

even assaulted any person in any manner. He would submit that the

said statement records that as many as six persons came to the garage

and grabbed various mechanical instruments like screw driver, T-bar,

2 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

hammer, iron rod which were used to commit assault on the victim.

However, he would submit that the said witnesses have not named the

Applicant having grabbed or taken the screw driver, which is the case

of prosecution for indicting against the Applicant.

4. Next, he would draw attention to the statement of another

prosecution witness, Wajid Babu Syed, copy of which is appended at

page No.299 and would submit that it states that two co-Accused

persons had come to his shop and grabbed the hammer and fled and

the said hammer was used in the commission of the crime. He would

submit that this prosecution witness also does not name the Applicant.

He would vehemently argue that the Applicant has no nexus or

connection with the alleged head of the organized crime syndicate or

any other member of the alleged organized crime syndicate and there

are no common antecedents of other co-accused persons with the

Applicant qua the alleged organized crime syndicate and, therefore,

invocation of provisions under MCOC Act against the Applicant are

manifestly erroneous and they are innocuously invoked to book the

Applicant. He would submit that Applicant has deep roots in Society

and has been residing at his residential address alongwith his family

permanently and there is no possibility of he absconding or or not

remaining available for trial. He would submit that the Applicant has

already undergone 2 years and 5 months of incarceration and the trial

of the Applicant is not likely to commence in the near future and

3 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

therefore indefinite incarceration of the Applicant would serve no

purpose and the Applicant be therefore enlarged on bail with

appropriate conditions.

5. PER CONTRA, Ms. Talhar has drawn my attention to the

Affidavit-in-Reply dated 26.11.2025 filed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Faraskhana Division, Pune City appended at

page No.626 of the Application and would contend that the deceased

victim – Nikhil Sakharam Akhade who was pillion riding with Gaurav

Sarwad at about 03:00 p.m. on his scooter were suddenly intercepted

by a group of individuals including the Applicant and 5 other identified

and 3 – 4 unidentified persons. She would submit that the said

Accused persons threatened to kill Nikhil Sakharam Akhade and

Complainant who were riding the Vespa and Ramji Gujar and Akash

Pailwan co-accused amongst them actively instigated everyone. She

would submit that according to prosecution case and eye witness

account, Akash Pailwan assaulted the deceased victim - Nikhil

Sakharam Akhade with a rod on his head, Ramji Gujar another co-

accused assaulted him with a hammer on his head and as

Complainant, dismounted from the scooter Amit Patole and Yash Patil,

two other co-accused restrained him while the Applicant herein

assaulted him on his face and head repeatedly with a screwdriver. She

would submit that the said assault with screwdriver by the Applicant

resulted in loss of one tooth of the Complainant and several injuries on

4 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

his face and head which is borne out from the medical record.

5.1. Eye witness account narrated by Complainant who was

accompanying the deceased victim prima facie shows that one co-

accused Ayush Bidkar thereafter assaulted the deceased victim on his

head and body with a screwdriver whereas Ramji Gujar assaulted the

Complainant / First Informant with a rod on his head. The said eye

witness thereafter states that he ran inside a nearby house belonging to

one Priti Gaikwad and at that time blood was oozing out from his face

and head. He has stated that he returned to the scene of crime and

saw that all the Accused persons including the Applicant were

brandishing their weapons and issuing loud threats to all those who

were standing and witnessing the incident nearby and at that time

Yash Patil and Amir Khan, two of the co-accused persons grabbed the

scooter belonging to the victim and fled the scene on the said scooter

whereas the remaining assailants left the scene of crime on foot.

5.2. She would submit that prosecution has recorded the

statements of 8 eye witnesses to the incident and therefore have made

a water-tight case against the Applicant. She would submit that

prosecution case is corroborated by the injury certificate of the

Complainant / First Informant issued by the Jahangir Hospital and

Bharti Vidyapeeth Hospital. She would submit that during the course

of investigation all 6 Accused persons were arrested and Investigating

5 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

Agency conducted memorandum panchnama of Accused No.6 – Akash

Kharat @ Pailwan and seized the weapons used in the commission of

the offence namely the iron rod, screwdriver, iron hammer, T-bar and

iron steel pipe. She would submit that the Vespa Moped scooter of the

deceased – victim which was used by the assailants after commission of

offence was also recovered by them. She would heavily rely upon

post-mortem report and PM Notes and list of injuries suffered by the

deceased – victim and the first informant eyewitness and submit that

the offence and crime was outcome of gang rivalry and gang war in

order to establish supremacy in the area and was executed with such

grievousness that a chilling warning was sent by the assailants to all

the persons in the area opposing them by repeatedly stabbing,

inflicting wounds and giving repeated blows on the deceased victim –

Nikhil Sakharam Akhade and the eyewitness by using iron rod, iron

steel pipe, screwdriver, iron hammer and the T-bar.

5.3. She would persuade the Court to consider that the

gruesomeness with which the crime was executed was such that

Applicant being member of Andekar gang would be a threat to the

Society if he is enlarged on bail. She would vehemently submit that

the Andekar gang in order to retaliate the murder of gang leader’s son

namely Vanraj Bandu Andekar committed the murder of the grandson

of another gang leader i.e. Ayush Komkar and accordingly offence for

the same was registered vide C.R.No.203 of 2025 and investigation is

6 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

going on. The offence was committed by Bandu Andekar with the help

of other co-accused, like the present Applicant and at present, the said

gang leader is in custody.

5.4. She would vehemently submit that releasing the Applicant

on bail would give the Andekar gang a fillip to create supremacy, and

conspire to commit similar heinous offences in the future, which

cannot be ruled out. She would also submit that there is every

possibility that the Applicant may also tamper with the witnesses and

attempt to influence them and hamper the investigation since he is a

known gang member of the Andekar gang.

5.5. She would submit that the Applicant is a habitual offender

and has as many as 7 serious antecedents under the Indian Penal Code,

1860, MCOC Act, and Arms Act registered and therefore, present

Application be dismissed notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant

has spent a substantial sentence even if prayed on the ground of long

incarceration. She would persuade the Court to balance convenience

qua the Applicant’s background and the Society at large before

releasing the Applicant on bail.

6. I have heard Mr. Pasbola, learned Senior Advocate for

Applicant and Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent – State and

with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions

made by them have received their due consideration.

7 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

7. The brief facts need to be placed in perspective before

consideration of the present Application. The complaint is lodged by

one Aniket D. Dudhbhate, who is also an injured and a victim in this

case. He has stated that his friend Nikhil Akhade, the deceased victim,

had been to Ambegaon Pathar to meet him. He has stated that he

came on his Vespa motorcycle bearing number MH 12 SP 4347. He

has stated that at about 4:00 p.m., Accused No.7 who is the Applicant

and Nikhil Akhade, the deceased, went to Nana Peth, Pune, to meet

the wife of Somnath Gaikwad, namely Preeti. He has stated that both

of them reached the house of Preeti and at about 4:00 p.m. they were

returning to their home. He has stated that Nikhil was driving his

motorcycle, and when they reached Shitladevi Mitra Mandal Chowk,

their vehicle was intercepted by Ramji Gujar, Akash Pawal, Amit

Pathole, Ramesh Patil, Ayush Bidkar, Aamir Pathan, and 3 to 4

unknown persons. He has stated that the said persons threatened

them and with an iron rod struck on the head of Nikhil Akhade. He

has stated that Ramji Gujar and Akash Pailwan threatened the

deceased Nikhil Akhade and inflicted a blow with an iron rod and

hammer on his head.

8. He has categorically stated that the Applicant Aamir Chinya

Aasir Khan, who is the Applicant before Court also assaulted him with

a screwdriver, causing an injury on his face and his tooth was broken.

He has stated that the Applicant thereafter assaulted him by the

8 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

screwdriver on his head and back and he suffered injuries. He has

stated that all other Accused thereafter displayed their weapons and

created terror by shouting loudly that nobody should interfere and

mess with the Andekar gang and that Bandu Andekar is the father of

all in Pune. He also submitted that thereafter the Applicant and Yash

took the Vespa motorcycle belonging to the deceased Nikhil and fled

away from the scene of crime which prima facie would mean that

present Applicant had tipped the other gang members about the

movement of Nikhil Akhade the deceased.

9. The aforesaid incident that has occurred is unfortunately due

to rivalry between two gangs in order to showcase their supremacy

against each other. This is what the prosecution investigation has

revealed. The Informant and injured alongwith deceased belongs to

the rival gang and the Accused / Applicant and other co-accused are

members of the Bandu Andekar gang. Both these gangs are active in

Pune region and have left no stone unturned for showcasing their

supremacy over each other by eliminating members from rival gangs.

The investigation has revealed that grandson of Bandu Andekar was

murdered by the gang controlled by the deceased - Nikhil Akhade's

gang and therefore, the attack on Nikhil Akhade was carried out in

retaliation. In so far as Applicant is concerned, he was arrested after a

few months from Jalgaon and from his search, a pistol and live

cartridges were recovered for which a separate crime is registered

9 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

against him in Jalgaon.

10. Case of the Applicant is that he has been falsely implicated

and he was not present at the spot. However, this cannot be

countenanced when there is overwhelming prima facie statement

made by the First Informant as well as others with regard to he not

only being present on the spot but he having assaulted by the

screwdriver whose dimensions are also stated by the prosecution to be

a long screwdriver in inflicting injury on the face, head and neck of the

injured victims. Further if statement of first informant is to be believed,

then interception of deceased by the Accused persons may possibly be

done by the Applicant having tipped them about his movement.

11. Though Mr. Pasbola has vehemently argued that no test

identification parade of the Applicant was conducted and therefore,

there is no confirmation of whether the Applicant was present during

the scene of crime which can be verified from the CCTV footage, I am

not inclined to accept the same for the simple reason that the

Applicant has been categorically indicted for having used a screwdriver

to inflict blows and cause terror alongwith the other co-accused

persons by eyewitnesses. What is intriguing is that injury caused by a

screwdriver is a pointed-puncture injury, which can go deep into the

body and injure and damage the internal body parts carrying grievous

hurt.

10 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

12. The antecedents against Applicant are on record and same

are delineated below for immediate reference as placed by Ms. Talhar:-

Sr.Nos. C.R.Nos. Sections Status
1. 256/2021 Sections 307, 141, 143, 147, Court
Bibwewadi 148, 149, 427, 506 (2) of the Pending
Police Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Station,Pune Section 4(25) of the Arms Act,
City Section 37(1)(3), 135 Criminal
Law Amendment Sections 3
and 7.
2. 1032/2022 Sections 387 of the Indian Court
Kondhwa Police Penal Code, 1860, Section Pending
Station, 506(2), 504 of the Arms Act,
Pune City 4(25) of MCOC Act.
3. 673/2021 Sections 367, 326, 323, 504, Court
Kondhwa Police 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Pending
Station, Pune 1860, Sections 37(1), 135 of
City MCOC Act.
4. 22/2011 Sections 326, 323, 425, 504, Court
Kondhwa Police 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Pending
Station, Pune 1860 and Section 4(25) of the
City Arms Act and Sections 37(1)
(3), 135 of MCOC Act.
5. 353/2021 Sections 323, 324, 504 read Court
Kondhwa Police with Section 34 of the Indian Pending
Station, Pune Penal Code, 1860 and Section
City 4(25) of the Arms Act and
Sections 37(1)(3), 135 of
MCOC Act.
6. 1092/2022 Sections 323, 324, 504 read Court
Kondhwa Police with Section 34 of the Indian Pending
Station, Pune Penal Code, 1860.
City
7. 110/2024 Sections3(25) of Arms Act and Court
Chalisgaon City Section 34 of the Indian Penal Pending
Police Station, Code, 1860 and Sections 37(1)
Jalgaon (3) read with Section 135 of
the MCOC Act

11 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

13. Mr. Pasbola would submit that the role of the Applicant is

limited to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. What is crucial

is the fact that the interception by the Accused persons was with a

clear notion of committing the murder of the deceased victim – Nikhil

Sakharam Akhade and this is clearly evident from their conduct after

inflicting the blows with the weapons on the deceased - victim and the

injured victims with fatality in mind and thereafter terrorizing the

Society at large by brandishing weapons openly. In a Society and State

like ours this cannot be permitted where Rule of Law exists and is

supreme. Injury Certificates prima facie also give credence to the

prosecution case. The victim assaulted by the screwdriver have given a

first-account version as eyewitness from which it is very clear that the

role of the Applicant was not to scare the Informant and the victim but

to eliminate them. Further, the Applicant’s role of fleeing away from

the scene of crime by grabbing the motorcycle belonging to the

deceased - victim also shows his common intention to commit the

crime. Therefore in my opinion, each and every Accused is liable for

the said heinous act which has been committed by them to terrorize

the Society at large. I am unable to therefore accept the submissions

made by Mr. Pasbola that the Applicant’s role is confined only to the

extent of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as that would be

a subject matter of trial. The incident in question leading to the fatal

death of the deceased - victim is an outcome of gang war. Applicant’s

12 of 13
34.BA.3494.2025.doc

role and weapon is clearly defined and attributed. Subsequent arrest of

Applicant alongwith the pistol and live cartridges, itself shows the

demeanor of the Applicant to not follow the law and therefore, I am

not inclined to consider the request made by Mr. Pasbola, either on

merits or even otherwise, on the ground of long incarceration of the

Applicant having spent 2 years and 5 months in his incarceration as

releasing such Applicant would be a menace and threat to the Society

at large.

14. Considering the gravity and the gruesomeness with which

the deceased was killed by the Accused persons and the injured victims

have been assaulted including the Applicant, and the humongous

number of injuries suffered by the deceased victim on his entire body

bear testimony to that fact. The Application of the Applicant is

therefore rejected.

15. Bail Application is dismissed.

H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed by
HARSHADA HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.20
15:06:27 +0530

13 of 13

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…