Bombay High Court

JANNATUNNISA ABDUL SAI CHAUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 31 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHYAM C CHANDAK

Holding

The court granted bail to the applicant, holding that the circumstances warranted release pending trial.

Summary

The applicant, Kamruddin Nijamuddin Khan, was charged with murder, conspiracy and offences under the IPC and Arms Act, alleged to have been motivated by a grievance over an obscene video. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence such as CDRs, CCTV footage and the presence of the applicant with co‑accused and a juvenile at the crime scene, while the defence argued there were no eyewitnesses and the alleged video was never recovered. The court noted that a prima facie case existed but also observed that the applicant had been in custody for four years, the trial was pending compliance with Section 330 of the BNSS, and the prosecution had listed 44 witnesses, indicating a protracted trial. Balancing the seriousness of the allegations against the prolonged incarceration, the judge deemed bail appropriate. Accordingly, the applicant was released on bail with conditions of surety, regular police attendance and non‑interference with evidence. The order expressly clarified that the bail decision does not constitute any opinion on the applicant's guilt.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the court in granting bail to an accused charged with murder and related offences based on circumstantial evidence?
Does the prolonged period of pre‑trial detention justify bail despite the seriousness of the charges?

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 201, 302, 307, 34

Subjects

bail
circumstantial evidence
murder
criminal conspiracy
prolonged incarceration
IPC
Arms Act
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

Digitally
signed by MANOJ 905-BA-5329-2024.DOC
WAKLE
WAKLE MANOJ
MANOJ JANARDHAN
JANARDHAN Date:
2026.08.01
16:44:17
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.5329 OF 2024
Kamruddin Nijamuddin Khan @ Babar …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4819 of 2025
IN
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.5329 OF 2024
Jannatunnisa Abdul Sai Chaudhary …Intervenor
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :-
Kamruddin Nijamuddin Khan @ Babar …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Mr. Sandesh Manikhedkar i/by Adv. Dipika Gupte, for the
Applicant.
Mr. Vikram Jakhadi, for the Intervenor.
Mr. V.A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Rajendra Nagare, API, Mahim Police Station, present.

CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 31st JULY, 2026
P.C. :-

1. Present Application seeking release of the Applicant on bail
in connection with C.R. No.25 of 2022 registered with Mahim
Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections
120-B, 201, 302 , 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short “IPC”) and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Heard Mr. Manikhedkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant,
Mr. Kulkarni, learned APP for the Respondent-State and
Mr.Jakhadi, learned Counsel for the Intervenor.

Page 1 of 5
MANOJ 905-BA-5329-2024.DOC

3. The prosecution case is that, Wasim, the deceased had
circulated an obscene video involving the Applicant.
Consequently, Applicant had developed a grudge against the
deceased. A3 - Altaf also had an enmity with the deceased due to a
quarrel on account of snatching deceased’s mobile phone.
Therefore, the Applicant, Accused No.2 – Balkishan Gupta and A3
entered into a criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased. Pursuant to
the conspiracy, on the night intervening 2 nd February and 3rd
February 2022, a juvenile girl met the deceased at the seashore at
Mahim. Initially, the juvenile raised a quarrel with the deceased
and assaulted him by means of a knife. Thereafter, the Applicant
and A2 assaulted the deceased by means of sharp weapons. The
juvenile inflicted injuries to herself. However, the juvenile tried to
show that she and the deceased were assaulted by two unknown
persons.

4. Mr. Manikhedkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant has
submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident. The entire
prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, i.e., CDR
location, CCTV footage and recovery. As alleged, since the
deceased had circulated the obscene video involving the Applicant,
therefore, the Applicant had a motive to kill the deceased.
However, the said obscene video is not recovered during the
investigation. There was no other reason for the Applicant to
commit murder of the deceased by conspiring with A3. Therefore,
merely on the basis of the phone calls exchanged between the
deceased and the Applicant before the murder and the fact that,
around the same time, they were seen at some places together as
per the CCTV footage, no conclusion can possibly be drawn that
the Applicant committed the murder of the deceased or was
involved in the commission of murder of the deceased along with

Page 2 of 5
MANOJ 905-BA-5329-2024.DOC

the A2 and the juvenile. Therefore and, on the ground of
prolonged incarceration the Applicant is entitled for bail.

5. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned APP and Mr. Jakhadi, the learned
Counsel, on the other hand have submitted that there is
overwhelming circumstantial evidence against the Applicant that
he along with the co-accused persons had hatched the criminal
conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. Accordingly,
with the help of the juvenile, the deceased was called at the spot by
the Applicant and A2 and there, they committed his murder.
However, with the help of the juvenile, they tried to show that
some unknown persons had committed the murder. Therefore, the
Applicant is not entitled for bail.

6. I have considered these submissions. Admittedly, there was
no eye witness to the murder. The Respondents have not
controverted the submission made by Mr. Manikhedkar that the
alleged obscene video involving the Applicant was not recovered.
However, the statement of certain witness indicate that an
obscene video involving the Applicant was recorded by the
deceased and later on, he had used that video to extort money
from the deceased to get liquor, drugs etc. The CDRs and the
CCTV footage collected during investigation shows that just before
the murder, phone calls were exchanged between the Applicant,
the deceased and other accused persons. As per the CCTV footage,
around the time of the murder, the Applicant, A2, the deceased
and the juvenile girl were together while going towards Mahim.
Considering these submissions and the recovery, in my view, there
is a prima facie case against the Applicant of having committed the
alleged offence.

Page 3 of 5
MANOJ 905-BA-5329-2024.DOC

7. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, it appears that, the Applicant was a victim of sexual
exploitation by a certain witness who had recorded a video thereof.
The deceased had also stealthily recorded an obscene video of the
said act and he used to extort money from the Applicant by
threatening to circulate that video. A3, one of the alleged
conspirators, has been granted bail. No doubt, the allegations
made against the Applicant are of serious nature, but they are
required to be balanced with relevant considerations, including
the period of incarceration the Applicant has already undergone,
and the likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.
Therefore, in my considered view, the Applicant is also entitled for
bail, at least, on the ground of prolonged incarceration. Because,
the Applicant is in jail since last four years. Although, charge has
been framed in March 2025, the case is pending for compliance of
Section 330 of BNSS (Old Section 294 of Cr.P.C.). The prosecution
has cited total 44 witnesses. The trial is, therefore, not going to be
concluded soon.

8. Thus, I am inclined to allow the present Application and
pass following Order :-

(i) Applicant – Kamruddin Nijamuddin Khan @ Babar
shall be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.25 of
2022 registered with Mahim Police Station, Mumbai on his
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall mark his attendance at Mahim
Police Station, Mumbai, on the 1st day of each calendar
month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., till the conclusion
of the trial.

Page 4 of 5
MANOJ 905-BA-5329-2024.DOC

(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 witness 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
Investigation 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.

(viii) Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

9. Since hearing opportunity was granted to the informant,
aforesaid Interim Application No.4819 of 2025 seeking said relief,
stands disposed of, accordingly.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

Page 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…