Bombay High Court
INZIMAM ALIMULLAH HAQversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that a prima facie case exists against the applicant and therefore bail is denied.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Suraj Krishna Jaiswal, accused of murder under Sections 103(1) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that Jaiswal, riding an Activa scooter bearing registration MH‑03/EN‑8542, stabbed the deceased Jishan Shaikh after a confrontation, with the knife recovered from his scooter and CCTV footage linking him to the scene. The defence argued that discrepancies between the assailant’s description in the FIR and Jaiswal’s appearance, as well as the possibility that police planted the knife, created reasonable doubt and no prima facie case. The court examined the CCTV evidence, toll‑gate receipt, hospital records, and the recovered knife, finding the identification credible despite minor description mismatches. Concluding that a prima facie case existed, the court rejected the bail plea, allowing the applicant to reapply after one year if the trial had not progressed. The order clarified that the bail rejection does not constitute a finding on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the discrepancies in the assailant’s description defeat the existence of a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in view of the material evidence linking him to the alleged murder
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 352
Subjects
- bail
- prima facie case
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 103(1)
- Section 352
- CCTV evidence
- identification parade
- discrepancy in description
- murder
- knife
Judgment
WAKLE
MANOJ
JANARDHAN MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.09.07
10:49:26 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1172 OF 2026
Suraj Krishna Jaiswal …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2986 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1172 OF 2026
Inzimam Alimullah Haq …Intervenor
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:-
Suraj Krishna Jaiswal
…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2559 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1172 OF 2026
Suraj Krishna Jaiswal …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Indrajeet Joshi (through VC), for the Applicant.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Karim Pathan a/w Adv. Shane Illahi, Adv.Fazal Shaikh, Adv.
Shoaib Shaikh & Adv. Kehkasha Shaikh, for the Intervenor.
Mr. R. J. Chandugade, PI a/w S. V. Jadhav, PSI, Pant Nagar Police
Station, present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
Page 1 of 5
MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. The applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with
Cr.No.489 of 2025 registered with Pant Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 103 (1) and 352
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), on the report dated
25th May, 2025 filed by Inzimamul Alimullad Haq – the informant.
3. The prosecution case is that on 25th May, 2025, at about 2:00
p.m. the informant and the deceased Jishan Shaikh were
proceeding by car from Vikroli to Ramabai Service Road. The
deceased was driving the car. At that time, one person riding a
scooter was making gestures towards them by hand and talking
something. Therefore, the deceased pulled down the glass of his side
door. At that juncture, the scooter rider abused him. Therefore, the
deceased told him to stop and he also stopped his car and got down.
Thereafter, scooterist abused the deceased and suddenly, he
removed a knife from a dicky of his scooter and stabbed the
deceased on the chest. Thereafter, the scooterist along with the
woman with him, fled from the spot. Immediately, the deceased was
removed to the Rajawadi hospital, where he succumbed to the
injury while undergoing medical treatment. Therefore, the aforesaid
crime came to be registered.
4. It is alleged that immediately after the incident, crowd had
gathered there. One person from the crowd had noted the scooter
registration No.“8542” on a receipt of tollgate and put that note in
the car. During investigation, police collected the relevant CCTV
footage and obtained the information of the scooters having similar
registration number, from the RTO. Investigation revealed that, at
the relevant time, the applicant was the same person who had
Page 2 of 5
MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC
stabbed the deceased. Therefore, the applicant came to be arrested.
At the instance of the applicant the knife used in offence was
recovered. The informant identified the applicant in the Test
Identification Parade. On completion of investigation, police
submitted the charge-sheet. The Sessions Court refused to release
the applicant on bail.
5. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that,
there is discrepancy between the description of the assailant and his
scooter stated in the report and the description of the applicant and
the scooter recovered from him. Therefore, it cannot be accepted
that the applicant has committed this offence. He submitted that, at
the time of the arrest of the applicant, his scooter key was taken in
charge by the police and thereafter, the police showed that scooter
recovered at the instance of the applicant including the knife in the
dicky. Therefore, a possibility of foisting the knife on the applicant
is not ruled out. Thus, there is no prima facie case against the
applicant of having committed this crime and he deserves to be
released on bail.
6. In reply, Mr. Dedhia, learned APP has submitted that there is
sufficient material against the applicant which shows that the
applicant had stabbed the deceased and caused his murder.
7. I have considered these submissions. The material on record
and the CCTV footage produced for perusal of the Court shows that,
at the relevant time, the applicant was riding the Activa scooter
bearing regn. no. MH-03/EN-8542 from the same road by which
the car of the deceased was proceeding. The said no.8542 is
matching with the Activa scooter no. noted on the tollgate receipt as
stated above. In this background, the police ascertained the scooter
of the applicant with its regn. no. MH-03/EN-8542 from the RTO
Page 3 of 5
MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC
concerned. As alleged, after committing the murder, the applicant
went to Sion hospital for medical treatment of his wife who had
sustained some injury. This fact is confirmed with the hospital
record. There is close proximity between the timings of the medical
examination of the applicant’s wife and the timings of the incident.
The blood stained knife is recovered from the dicky of the scooter of
the applicant. In the backdrop, prima facie it appears that the
applicant is the same person who had stabbed the deceased and
caused his death.
8. Record clearly indicates that there is discrepancy in the
description of the assailant stated in the report and the description
of the applicant stated in his arrest form. As per the report, the
assailant was aged 30 to 35 years, of strong built and had short hair
on head. He had wore white half sleeved T-shirt and black night
pant on his person. But, as recorded in the arrest form, the
applicant had long hair and medium built. The CCTV footage show
that the applicant had worn full sleeves white t-shirt with stripes
and his pant colour does not appear black. However, considering
the fact that the incident had occurred all of a sudden, said
discrepancy is not significant at this stage.
9. In the wake of above, I am of the view that there is a prima
facie case against the applicant and he is not entitled for bail. As a
result, the bail application is rejected.
10. However, the applicant will be at liberty to renew the prayer
for bail after one year before this Court, if the trial is not sufficiently
advanced.
Page 4 of 5
MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC
11. It is clarified that the observation made in the present Order
and rejection of the prayer for the bail will not be treated as findings
on the merit of the case.
12. Since opportunity of hearing was given to the informant, the
aforesaid Interim application No. 2986 of 2026 seeking said relief
stands disposed of, accordingly. Since the bail application is
disposed of, the Interim application No. 2559 of 2026 does not
survive and stands disposed of, accordingly.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…