MANOJ 905-BA-5329-2024.DOC 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 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :- Kamruddin Nijamuddin Khan @ Babar …Intervenor …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 WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2026.08.01 16:44:17 +0530 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 2nd 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 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.)