H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.4513 OF 2024 Umashankar @ Sachin Ashok Singh Thakur @ Umashankar Ashok Singh …. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra …. Respondent Mr. Tabish Mooman i/b Ms. M. S. Alphonzo for the Applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Bhagwan Pawar, PSI, Kurar police station present. CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 22nd JUNE, 2026 P.C. :- . Present Application seeks release of the Applicant on bail in C.R. No. 651 of 2021 registered with Kurar police station under Sections 302, 307, 326, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) & 135 of the Bombay Police Act, on the report dated 02.06.2021 filed by Karim Khan. 2) Heard Mr.Mooman, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr.Dedhia, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Perused the record and the photocopy of P.M. Report produced by PSI, Mr. Bhagwan Pawar, Kurar police station through learned APP. (Taken on record and marked “X”). 3) The prosecution case is that deceased Raj Khan was brother of the informant-Karim Khan. Heena was their sister. The Applicant was friend of deceased-Raj Khan. Heena and the Applicant were in love relationship. Prior to the incident, on being advised by their families, they had stopped 1/6 PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.06.24 10:36:17 +0300 H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt meeting each other. As stated in the report, about one month prior to the incident, when Heena was loitering near her building alongwith her neice, the Applicant came there inebriated and demanded Heena to handover her niece to him. However, Heena refused him. It led to oral altercation between them, during which, the Applicant slapped Heena. Therefore, Heena’s family had given an understanding to the Applicant not to repeat such act. On 28.05.2021, the deceased got released from jail. At that time, Heena had told him about the incident of slapping to her by the Applicant. On 2nd June 2021, at about 11.30 a.m. the deceased left home saying that he would go to the Applicant and give him an understanding to not to quarrel in future. At about 1.00 pm the informant’s Uncle Rizwan Khan came and informed him that the Applicant assaulted the deceased by means of sickle, near Naushad Tekdi Nalla, Kurargaon, Vayshet Pada No.2, Mumbai. Therefore, the informant and others went to the said spot. The deceased was found lying at the spot in a pool of blood and he was unconscious. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to a Shatabdi hospital and then to Sion hospital. Thereafter, the informant filed a report and the present crime came to be registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. The Applicant came to be arrested on 7th June 2021. As per the prosecution case, on 03.06.2021, the deceased gave a dying declaration before PSI Bhalerao that on the relevant date, time and place when he was trying to give an understanding to the Applicant as to not quarrel again, the Applicant assaulted him by means of Koyta. Again, on 05.06.2021, the deceased gave a dying declaration before Mr. Chalke, PI. Therein, the deceased narrated the same. According to the prosecution, similar oral dying declarations were made by the deceased before Heena and Noor Mohd. Kadar Shaikh, friend of the deceased. On completion of the 2/6 H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. The Bail Application filed by the Applicant came to be rejected by the trial Court. 4) Mr.Mooman, learned Counsel for the Applicant prayed for bail on two grounds. Firstly, he has submitted that considering the injuries of the deceased, it was impossible for him to give dying declaration. The delay in the recording the dying declarations by the police and the delay in recording the statement of witnesses before whom the deceased had allegedly given the oral dying declarations, fortifies the said fact. Secondly, he submitted that the Applicant is in jail for more than five years. The charge has been framed about one year back, however, the trial is not yet commenced. Therefore, the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 5) Mr.Dedhia, learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that in all the dying declarations the deceased has consistently stated that the Applicant had assaulted him by means of the sickle, caused him serious injuries leading to his death. The sickle has been recovered by the police at the instance of the Applicant. Heena has identified the sickle as it was shown to her by the Applicant. Therefore, bail may be refused. 6) I have considered the submissions. As per the P.M. report, there were following injuries over the skull of the deceased :- “Underscalp hematoma present on right posterior parietal and occipital region and right temporal region with hematoma of underlying right Temporalis muscle. Scalp is grossly oedematous all over. 1. Cut fracture of right temporooccipital bone corresponding to injury no.6 of column no.17, with fracture line extending to right temporal bone anteriorly, up to right frontal bone. 2. Comminuted displaced fracture of right posterior parietal and high occipital bone, corresponding to injury no.7 and 8 of 3/6 H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt column no.17, intermingling with fracture no.1, with bone fragment of size 2.5cm x 2.5cm adherent to scalp tissue, with outer table edges chiseled, underlying dura exposed and torn, with brain matter oozing out. 3. Cut fracture of size 2cm x 0.4cm present on posterior vertex region, vertically placed, corresponding to injury no.3 of column no.17, spindle shaped, involving outer table. 4. Depressed cut fracture of size 2cm x 1cm present on left occipital region, corresponding to injury no.9 of column no.17, vertically placed, involving outer table. 5. Linear displaced fracture of occipital bone, extending from left posterior cranial fossa to right posterior cranial fossa and mastoid region, V-shaped. Meninges dura torn at right occipital region. Diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage present on bilateral cerebral hemispheres. Brain-laceration present on right occipital region, with surrounding area of hemorrhagic contusion and softening, with around 20cc blood and blood clots present. Intraventricular hemorrhage present in lateral ventricle, with contusion present on left occipital region around right occipital horn of lateral ventricle.” 7) As stated in the statement of Heena, 1-2 days after the incident she had visited the deceased in the hospital. At that time, the deceased had told her about the incident. Meaning thereby, Heena had visited the hospital on 3rd or 4th June. However, her statement has been recorded on 5th June. According to witness Noor Mohd., he had visited the deceased in the hospital on 5th June and at that time, the deceased had told him about the incident. Nevertheless, his statement has been recorded on 18th June. 8) In both the dying declarations recorded by the police there is an endorsement by the Medical Officer that the deceased was conscious and oriented. However, there is no specific opinion as to whether the deceased was able to make the dying declaration or not. As stated in report filed by 4/6 H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt the informant, when the informant and others went to the spot immediately after the incident, the deceased was lying at the spot in a pool of blood and he was unconscious. Besides the internal injuries noted above, there were large numbers of external injuries on the body of the deceased. However, no material is pointed out from the record as to when the deceased regained consciousness to make the dying declaration before the police and the witnesses. There is variance in the statement of Heena and the narration in the report filed by the informant as to the prelude to the incident. 9) In view thereof, I find it difficult to prima facie conclude that although the deceased had sustained external and internal injuries, he was medically fit, i.e., conscious, oriented and able to make the dying declarations before the police and the witnesses, as claimed by the prosecution. No doubt, there is recovery of the sickle by which the Applicant had allegedly assaulted the deceased. However, this fact alone would not be sufficient to prima facie conclude that the Applicant had committed the murder of the deceased, as alleged. 10) The Applicant is in jail since last five years. Mr.Dedhia, learned APP submits that the Court where the case is pending, is vacant. Till date, no witness is examined by the prosecution. As such, the trial will take a reasonable time to conclude. 11) In view of the above discussion, the Applicant is entitled for bail. Thus, I am inclined to allow the Application. Hence, following Order :- (i) The Applicant–Umashankar @ Sachin Ashok Singh Thakur @ Umashankar Ashok Singh be released on bail in C.R. No. 651 of 2021 registered with Kurar police station under Sections 302, 307, 326, 504, 506 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 4, 25 of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) & 135 of the Bombay Police 5/6 H.C. SHIV 6.ba4513.24.odt Act, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) The Applicant shall mark his attendance at Kurar Police Station, Thane on 1st day of each calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (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 witnesses 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 Investigating 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. 12) Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) 6/6