Bombay High Court
UMASHANKAR @ SACHIN ASHOK SINGH THAKUR @ UMASHANKAR ASKHO SINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHYAM C CHANDAK
Holding
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case and, considering the lengthy pre‑trial detention, the accused was entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Umashankar Singh Thakur, who was charged with murder, attempted murder, grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, and offences under the Arms Act and Bombay Police Act. The prosecution relied on multiple dying declarations of the deceased, who had sustained severe head injuries, and on the recovery of a sickle allegedly used by the accused. The defence argued that the injuries made it doubtful the deceased was capable of giving reliable dying declarations and highlighted the five‑year pre‑trial detention without trial. The Court examined the medical report, the timing of statements, and the lack of a clear prima facie case. Finding the prosecution’s evidence insufficient and noting the prolonged incarceration, the Court granted bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case that the accused committed murder.
- Whether the dying declarations recorded are reliable given the deceased's medical condition.
- Whether the accused is entitled to bail after five years of pre‑trial detention.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 4
- Bombay Police Act — s. 135, 37(1)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 307, 326, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- dying declaration
- pre‑trial detention
- arms offence
- criminal procedure
- evidence
Judgment
PREETI
HEERO
JAYANI H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.06.24
10:36:17 +0300 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.4513 OF 2024
Umashankar @ Sachin Ashok
Singh Thakur @ Umashankar
Ashok Singh …. Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra …. Respondent
Mr. Tabish Mooman i/b Ms. M. S. Alphonzo for the Applicant.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Bhagwan Pawar, PSI, Kurar police station present.
CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 22nd JUNE, 2026
P.C. :-
. Present Application seeks release of the Applicant on bail in C.R. No.
651 of 2021 registered with Kurar police station under Sections 302, 307,
326, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and
Section 37(1) & 135 of the Bombay Police Act, on the report dated
02.06.2021 filed by Karim Khan.
2) Heard Mr.Mooman, learned Counsel for the Applicant and
Mr.Dedhia, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused the record and
the photocopy of P.M. Report produced by PSI, Mr. Bhagwan Pawar, Kurar
police station through learned APP. (Taken on record and marked “X”).
3) The prosecution case is that deceased Raj Khan was brother of the
informant-Karim Khan. Heena was their sister. The Applicant was friend of
deceased-Raj Khan. Heena and the Applicant were in love relationship.
Prior to the incident, on being advised by their families, they had stopped
1/6
H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt
meeting each other. As stated in the report, about one month prior to the
incident, when Heena was loitering near her building alongwith her neice,
the Applicant came there inebriated and demanded Heena to handover her
niece to him. However, Heena refused him. It led to oral altercation between
them, during which, the Applicant slapped Heena. Therefore, Heena’s
family had given an understanding to the Applicant not to repeat such act.
On 28.05.2021, the deceased got released from jail. At that time, Heena had
told him about the incident of slapping to her by the Applicant.
On 2nd June 2021, at about 11.30 a.m. the deceased left home saying
that he would go to the Applicant and give him an understanding to not to
quarrel in future. At about 1.00 pm the informant’s Uncle Rizwan Khan
came and informed him that the Applicant assaulted the deceased by means
of sickle, near Naushad Tekdi Nalla, Kurargaon, Vayshet Pada No.2,
Mumbai. Therefore, the informant and others went to the said spot. The
deceased was found lying at the spot in a pool of blood and he was
unconscious. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to a Shatabdi hospital
and then to Sion hospital. Thereafter, the informant filed a report and the
present crime came to be registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 504, 506
of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. The Applicant came to be
arrested on 7th June 2021.
As per the prosecution case, on 03.06.2021, the deceased gave a dying
declaration before PSI Bhalerao that on the relevant date, time and place
when he was trying to give an understanding to the Applicant as to not
quarrel again, the Applicant assaulted him by means of Koyta. Again, on
05.06.2021, the deceased gave a dying declaration before Mr. Chalke, PI.
Therein, the deceased narrated the same. According to the prosecution,
similar oral dying declarations were made by the deceased before Heena
and Noor Mohd. Kadar Shaikh, friend of the deceased. On completion of the
2/6
H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt
investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The Bail Application filed by
the Applicant came to be rejected by the trial Court.
4) Mr.Mooman, learned Counsel for the Applicant prayed for bail on two
grounds. Firstly, he has submitted that considering the injuries of the
deceased, it was impossible for him to give dying declaration. The delay in
the recording the dying declarations by the police and the delay in recording
the statement of witnesses before whom the deceased had allegedly given
the oral dying declarations, fortifies the said fact. Secondly, he submitted
that the Applicant is in jail for more than five years. The charge has been
framed about one year back, however, the trial is not yet commenced.
Therefore, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
5) Mr.Dedhia, learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that in all the
dying declarations the deceased has consistently stated that the Applicant
had assaulted him by means of the sickle, caused him serious injuries
leading to his death. The sickle has been recovered by the police at the
instance of the Applicant. Heena has identified the sickle as it was shown to
her by the Applicant. Therefore, bail may be refused.
6) I have considered the submissions. As per the P.M. report, there were
following injuries over the skull of the deceased :-
“Underscalp hematoma present on right posterior parietal and
occipital region and right temporal region with hematoma of
underlying right Temporalis muscle. Scalp is grossly oedematous
all over.
1. Cut fracture of right temporooccipital bone corresponding to
injury no.6 of column no.17, with fracture line extending to right
temporal bone anteriorly, up to right frontal bone.
2. Comminuted displaced fracture of right posterior parietal
and high occipital bone, corresponding to injury no.7 and 8 of
3/6
H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt
column no.17, intermingling with fracture no.1, with bone
fragment of size 2.5cm x 2.5cm adherent to scalp tissue, with
outer table edges chiseled, underlying dura exposed and torn,
with brain matter oozing out.
3. Cut fracture of size 2cm x 0.4cm present on posterior vertex
region, vertically placed, corresponding to injury no.3 of column
no.17, spindle shaped, involving outer table.
4. Depressed cut fracture of size 2cm x 1cm present on left
occipital region, corresponding to injury no.9 of column no.17,
vertically placed, involving outer table.
5. Linear displaced fracture of occipital bone, extending from
left posterior cranial fossa to right posterior cranial fossa and
mastoid region, V-shaped.
Meninges dura torn at right occipital region. Diffuse
subarachnoid hemorrhage present on bilateral cerebral
hemispheres.
Brain-laceration present on right occipital region, with
surrounding area of hemorrhagic contusion and softening, with
around 20cc blood and blood clots present. Intraventricular
hemorrhage present in lateral ventricle, with contusion present
on left occipital region around right occipital horn of lateral
ventricle.”
7) As stated in the statement of Heena, 1-2 days after the incident she
had visited the deceased in the hospital. At that time, the deceased had told
her about the incident. Meaning thereby, Heena had visited the hospital on
3rd or 4th June. However, her statement has been recorded on 5 th June.
According to witness Noor Mohd., he had visited the deceased in the
hospital on 5th June and at that time, the deceased had told him about the
incident. Nevertheless, his statement has been recorded on 18 th June.
8) In both the dying declarations recorded by the police there is an
endorsement by the Medical Officer that the deceased was conscious and
oriented. However, there is no specific opinion as to whether the deceased
was able to make the dying declaration or not. As stated in report filed by
4/6
H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt
the informant, when the informant and others went to the spot immediately
after the incident, the deceased was lying at the spot in a pool of blood and
he was unconscious. Besides the internal injuries noted above, there were
large numbers of external injuries on the body of the deceased. However, no
material is pointed out from the record as to when the deceased regained
consciousness to make the dying declaration before the police and the
witnesses. There is variance in the statement of Heena and the narration in
the report filed by the informant as to the prelude to the incident.
9) In view thereof, I find it difficult to prima facie conclude that although
the deceased had sustained external and internal injuries, he was medically
fit, i.e., conscious, oriented and able to make the dying declarations before
the police and the witnesses, as claimed by the prosecution. No doubt, there
is recovery of the sickle by which the Applicant had allegedly assaulted the
deceased. However, this fact alone would not be sufficient to prima facie
conclude that the Applicant had committed the murder of the deceased, as
alleged.
10) The Applicant is in jail since last five years. Mr.Dedhia, learned APP
submits that the Court where the case is pending, is vacant. Till date, no
witness is examined by the prosecution. As such, the trial will take a
reasonable time to conclude.
11) In view of the above discussion, the Applicant is entitled for bail.
Thus, I am inclined to allow the Application. Hence, following Order :-
(i) The Applicant–Umashankar @ Sachin Ashok Singh Thakur @
Umashankar Ashok Singh be released on bail in C.R. No. 651
of 2021 registered with Kurar police station under Sections
302, 307, 326, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 4, 25
of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) & 135 of the Bombay Police
5/6
H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt
Act, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall mark his attendance at Kurar Police
Station, Thane on 1st day of each calender 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 tamper with the prosecution evidence
and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the
prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against
him.
(v) 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.
(vi) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations
made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of
determination to the entitlement for bail and they may not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise
of the Applicant and the trial Court shall not be influenced by
any of the observations made hereinabove.
12) Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
6/6
Checking your session…