Bombay High Court
SHAHRUKH YUNUS KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail was granted as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Shahrukh Yunus Khan, was arrested in connection with a serious criminal case (CR No. 252 of 2024) involving murder, attempt to murder, and other offences under the IPC, Motor Vehicles Act, Maharashtra Police Act and MCOC. The prosecution relied on two statements of a witness: an earlier statement that named the applicant as a conspirator, and a later statement that omitted any reference to him. The court examined these statements and found a clear inconsistency, concluding that the prosecution had not established a prima‑facie nexus between the applicant and the alleged offences. Consequently, the court held that bail under Section 439 of the CrPC could be granted, subject to standard conditions. The bail was ordered on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties and various reporting and non‑interference conditions, and the application was disposed of in the applicant’s favour.
Issues considered
- The prosecution has established a prima facie case linking the applicant to the offences charged.
- Whether the inconsistency in the witness statements defeats the requirement of a prima facie case for bail under Section 439 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120(b), 279, 302, 307, 338, 427
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOC) — s. 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 142
- Motor Vehicles Act — s. 119, 132(1)(c), 177, 184
Subjects
- bail
- Section 439 CrPC
- prima facie evidence
- nexus
- witness statements
- IPC offences
- MCOC
- conditions of bail
Judgment
39. BA-4781-25.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4781 OF 2025
Shahrukh Yunus Khan .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Vipul Dushing a/w Mr. Ashraf Kazi i/by Mr. Mahesh Sakhare,
Advocates for Applicant
Mr. Amit Munde, APP for State
Ms. Nilam Jadhav, PSI, Wakad Police Station
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Dushing, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Munde, learned APP for State.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No. 252 of 2024
registered with Wakad Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 279, 338, 427 and
120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"); Sections 184,
119, 177, 132(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act; Section 142 of the
Maharashtra Police Act and Section 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC.
3. Mr. Dushing in his usual fair mindedness at the outset would
submit that in the present case Applicant has no nexus whatsoever
1 of 5
39. BA-4781-25.odt
with the offence. He would submit that on the basis of the statements
of witnesses and more specifically in view of the previous antecedents
of the Applicant, Applicant has been framed and indicted in the
present case. Be that as it may, insofar as the case of the prosecution
qua the Applicant is concerned and his complicity in the crime, the
same will be proved at the time of the trial. Today at the prima facie
state, the material presented by the prosecution needs to be examined
for grant of bail.
4. Placed before me is the evidence rather prima facie evidence
which is in the form of statement of one witness called Mr. Phadtare.
The said statement is dated 20.03.2024 (appended at page No. 162 of
the Application). Prima facie reading of the said statement shows that
he has named the Applicant being one of the conspirator by virtue of
he having overheard certain conversation in a public place in which
Applicant's name was mentioned, inter alia, relating to knocking down
of the victim in the present case by causing the accident by tempo.
Needless to state that the tempo was driven by other co-accused who
was its driver and owner viz; Rohit Gaikwad.
5. My attention is drawn and fairly so by Mr. Munde in his usual
fair mindedness to the 164 statement of the said witness which is
recorded on 31.07.2024 three months later (appended at page No.
469 of Application). It is prima facie seen from the said statement that
2 of 5
39. BA-4781-25.odt
it is devoid of the name, role or the conspiracy qua the present
Applicant in question altogether. In this statement, the witness prima
facie states that on being called by the prosecution with regard to the
accident in question, he has informed the prosecution about the
vehicle i.e. tempo having been driven by Rohit Gaikwad and he having
heard about the knocking down of the victim who was initially injured
but thereafter succumbed to his injury. The above dichotomy in the
aforesaid two statements on which the prosecution is relying upon is
prima facie evident. In that view of the matter, without going into the
merits of the matter with regard to applicability of MCOCA to the
Applicant's case, insofar as the present crime is concerned, the nexus
of the Applicant has not been prima facie proven / established.
6. In view of the above and since the Applicant is incarcerated for
two years and one month, I am inclined to release the Applicant on
bail. Bail Application is allowed on following grounds:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with C.R. No. 252 of 2024;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
3 of 5
39. BA-4781-25.odt
Wakad Police Station, once every month on the first
Sunday 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 any of the witnesses 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.
7. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in
the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
4 of 5
39. BA-4781-25.odt
8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally
signed by
RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.09.01
20:21:12
+0530
5 of 5
Checking your session…