Bombay High Court
RIYAZ VALI MOHAMMED SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court allowed the interim bail, suspending the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered an interim bail application filed by Riyas Vali Mohammed Shaikh, who was convicted under Section 120B(1) IPC and Sections 3(1)(I) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act for a 2011 shooting incident that resulted in two deaths. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine, and has been in custody for over 15 years while his appeal is pending. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and his role in supplying the firearm. The Court, noting his satisfactory conduct in prison, the lengthy period already served, and applying principles from Saudan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), ordered the suspension of his sentence and granted bail with stringent conditions. The bail order includes a bond, sureties, residence restrictions, regular police reporting, passport surrender, and a clause for cancellation upon default.
Issues considered
- Whether a person convicted of a life sentence under the MCOCA can be released on bail pending appeal
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and prior antecedents outweigh the applicant's long period of incarceration and conduct in prison
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120B(1), 302, 341, 342, 352, 452, 506(2)
- Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(I), 3(2), 3(4)
Subjects
- bail
- life imprisonment
- MCOCA
- organized crime
- appeal
- suspension of sentence
- conditions of release
- court discretion
Judgment
305-ia 589-26.doc
ARJUN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MACHHINDRA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
KADAM
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 589 OF 2026
Digitally signed by
ARJUN MACHHINDRA
KADAM
IN
Date: 2026.08.21 APPEAL NO. 568 OF 2017
18:00:42 +0530
Riyas Vali Mohammed Shaikh … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Mohammed Ahmed Shaikh a/w. Ms. Sofiya Shaikh for the Applicant.
Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Amit Gharte for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Prosper D’souza for the Appellant in Appeal No. 534/17.
ASI Mane, DCB, CID Unit, Mumbai present.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 21st AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Learned APP and learned counsel appointed through Legal Aid for
respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the application for bail. It is
submitted that the applicant, who is accused No.5, is convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 120 B(1) of Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1) (I), 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,
Amk 1/6
305-ia 589-26.doc
1999 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and is also
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
3. The alleged incident took place on 14th March, 2011. It is the case of
the prosecution that on 14th March, 2011, Mohd. Shoaib Mussa Shaikh
visited the site at about 10.00 a.m. and was sitting on the footpath and
thereafter he found that the security guard was sitting in the compound. At
about 10.30 a.m. Samrat Devarshi visited the office. He was followed by
Manoj Patil, site engineer at about 10.45 a.m. At about 11.00 a.m. Yogesh
Khule (victim) who was site supervisor also visited the site and was
working in the cabin. At about 11.30 a.m. two unknown persons visited
the main gate when Mohd. Shoaib Mussa Shaikh inquired them as to who
they are and whom they want to meet. To which they replied that they are
from a courier company and want to deliver something. Mr. Mohd. Shoaib
let them enter the site, but however followed them. At that time, the
victim also inquired with them as to who they are to which they replied
that they are from courier company. At that moment, one of the accused
removed the gun from his bag and pointed it towards the victim and took
him towards the cabin and closed the door of the cabin. One Mr. Samrat
Devarshi was also present in the cabin. The other person pointed the gun
toward the security guard.
Amk 2/6
305-ia 589-26.doc
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the three persons standing
outside were facing the iron sheets. They heard two shots of fire from
inside the cabin. The accused threatened the person who was standing
outside the cabin and one of them handed over a chit in the hands of the
security guard and ran away from the spot. The victims were lying in the
pool of blood. There are in all two victims.
5. The applicant-original accused No.5 was arrested from Uttar Pradesh
on the confession of accused No.1 Raju Jadhav.
6. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 452, 352, 341,
342 and 506(2) read with 120 (B), 3(2) of the IPC and 3(4) of MCOC Act,
1989 and 25(1) of Arms Act.
7. In all 36 witnesses came be to examined. The applicant is now in
custody for more than 15 years. We have perused the nominal roll
submitted by the learned APP. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for
the victim while opposing the bail application submitted that the applicant
was convicted for a serious offence and that charges are under MCOC Act.
It is further submitted that it is the applicant who had supplied the fire arm
to the accused.
8. Our attention is invited to the findings which are at paragraph
Nos.178, 179 and 180 of the Judgment and order of trial Court to submit
that the cogent reasons have been given by the trial Court while convicting
Amk 3/6
305-ia 589-26.doc
accused No.5. It is submitted that accused No.5 has a major role and he is
as much as responsible as the other accused.
9. No doubt, the offence is serious. It is pointed out that there was
previous antecedent and the applicant was charged for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. However, the prosecution
resulted in acquittal.
10. So far as this appeal is concerned, it may not be possible for us to
give a priority hearing to this appeal considering the number of older
appeals pending. In the present case, there are as many as 36 witnessess.
Nominal roll indicates that the conduct of the applicant in the jail appears
to be satisfactory. In our opinion, considering that the applicant has
already undergone 15 years of actual imprisonment and the appeal will
still take some time to be heard finally in the light of the principles laid
down in Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online SC
697, we are inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail by imposing stringent
conditions.
11. Hence, the following Order:-
(i) The sentence imposed by the trial Court in MCOC Special Case
No. 11 of 2011 along with MCOC Special Case No. 17 of 2011 by the
Judgment and order dated 5th and 6th October, 2016 in respect of the
applicant-original accused No.5 - Riyaz Vali Mohammed Shaikh is
Amk 4/6
305-ia 589-26.doc
suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
(ii) The applicant-original accused No.5 - Riyas Vali Mohammed
Shaikh is enlarged on bail in MCOC Special Case No. 11 of 2011
along with MCOC Special Case No. 17 of 2011 on his furnishing P. R.
bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent local sureties in the
like amount.
(iii) The applicant-original accused No.5 shall not enter jurisdiction
of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban District, Thane District and Palghar
District during the pendency of the appeal.
(iv) The applicant-original accused No.5 shall report once in a
month on every first Monday of the month commencing October,
2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m to the nearest police station
close to his residence.
(v) The applicant shall furnish the details of his residential
address and contact details to the trial Court and deposit his passport
in the trial Court before his enlargement on bail.
(vi) The applicants shall remain present at the time of final
hearing of the appeal.
(vii) In case of two consecutive defaults in attendance, prosecution
is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
(viii) It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on bail
Amk 5/6
305-ia 589-26.doc
only after the fine amount has been paid.
12. The Interim Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and
disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 6/6
Checking your session…