PRASAD 916_BA_3692_2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3692 OF 2025 Mohd. Sahil Mohd. Kalim Shaikh …. Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.1485 OF 2026 Mohd. Sherali Zaheer Ul Haq@ Jahiruddin Shaikh …. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Ravi Dwivedi a/w Ms. Aishwarya Pandit and Ms. Sakshi Singh, for the Applicant in BA/3692/2025. Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani a/w Ms. Mayanka S.R., for the Applicant in BA/1485/2026. Mr. Kaushik Mhatre, SPP a/w Sanket Dhawan, for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. Ganesh Gaikwad, Dharavi Police Station, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 06th AUGUST 2026 P.C.:- . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. Mr. Bhawnani has submited the synopsis and Mr. Mhatre submitted written submissions. It is taken on record. 2. Applicants seek their release on bail in connection with C.R. No.680 of 2024 registered with Dharavi Police Station, for offence punishable under Section 103(1), 111(2), 351(2), 352, 115(2), 3(5), 61(B), 189(1), 189(2), 189(4), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with Section 37(A)(1) of Bombay Police Act on 06th August 2026 PRASAD 916_BA_3692_2025.DOC the Report dated 29.07.2024, filed by Shailesh Vaishya, who is brother of the deceased Arvind Vaishya. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 29.07.2024 at about 06:00 p.m., one Siddhesh Gore, witness in this case, was riding a motorcycle which hit the father of one JB namely “A”. However, Siddhesh abused the father of the JB for not paying attention. At about 06:40 p.m. when Siddhesh was present with his friend Anil, the JB came there with a knife. At that time, Siddhesh assaulted the JB with fists. Meanwhile, Niyaz and Aarif came there and they abused and assaulted Siddhesh with fists. At that juncture, witness Rakesh intervened and stopped the fight. In some time, Siddhesh’s father and brother Rushabh came there. However, Niyaz and Aarif assaulted them. Therefore, deceased Arvind came there to solve the fight. Therefore, co-accused Aarif and Niyaz called their friends Applicant-Sherali, Shubham, Jumman and Kadir who assaulted to the father and brother of Siddhesh. At that time, police came there. Therefore, all the accused went away. As the prosecution story goes further, at about 09:40 p.m., deceased Arvind and Siddhesh along with police were searching for accused Niyaz and Aarif in connection with aforesaid incident. Certain witnesses were in police vehicle. Deceased Arvind and Rajesh were on bike. Suddenly, accused Niyaz came there from a lane and stabbed Arvind. Co-accused Yasin assaulted the deceased by means of stick. Aarif was trying to assault Arvind, but police accosted him. However, co-accused Yasin and Niyaz ran away. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Therefore, aforesaid crime came to be registered. The Applicant Sherali was arrested on 30.07.2024. It is alleged that Applicant – Sahil was 06th August 2026 PRASAD 916_BA_3692_2025.DOC absconding and he was arrested on 15.01.2025. Meanwhile, police recorded statements of witnesses including supplementary statements of the Informant. The investigation revealed that at the time of murder, Applicant – Sherali was present at the spot and Applicant Sahil was present along with a motorcycle. In the first statement of informant under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., it is alleged that Applicant Sherali was armed with a knife and Applicant Sahil was on a motorcycle. In the last supplementary statement, the informant alleged that all the accused persons were trying to assault the deceased. Thus, according to prosecution the Applicants were involved in the aforesaid offence as a member of unlawful assembly. Therefore, both the Applicants were charge- sheeted alongwith the others. 4. Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Bhawnani, learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that admittedly, both the Applicants were not assigned any overt act in the assault on the deceased. In the first statement under Section 180 of the BNSS, the Informant only stated that Applicant Sherali had a knife and one unknown person having big lips, i.e., Applicant Sahil was seated on a motorcycle near the place of the murder. However, in the last supplementary statement the Informant has improvised his version and alleged that, all the accused came forward to assault the deceased. Therefore, the said allegation is not prima facie reliable. The role assigned to the Applicants by the informant, similar role is assigned to them by two witnesses, but they were examined after five months of the incident. The reason of not reaching to the said two witnesses for inquiry during the first round of investigation, is not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, whether Applicant 06th August 2026 PRASAD 916_BA_3692_2025.DOC Sherali had knife in his hand, whether Applicant Sahil was present at the spot and whether both the Applicants had come forward to assault the deceased, all these are the questions of trial. They submitted that co-accused Jumman and Kadir, who had identical role except holding a knife like Applicant Sherali, they have been granted anticipatory and regular bail. Therefore, on the principle of parity, both the Applicants deserve bail. 5. In contrast, Mr. Mhatre, learned SPP, opposed the application. He vehemently submitted that in the statement under Section 180 of the BNSS recorded on the same date of the FIR, the informant has specifically stated that Applicant Sherali was present at the spot and he was armed with a knife. In the subsequent statement, he has stated Applicant Sahil was present on the spot sitting on his motorcycle. All the accused persons had come forward to assault the deceased. However, they stopped because police had arrived at the spot. Therefore, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Applicants had not actually participated in the assault, their presence on the spot is sufficient to hold them guilty of the murder on account of sharing common object of the unlawful assembly, a vicarious liability for the murder. Therefore, the Applicants are not entitled for bail. 6. I have considered these submissions. During the course of arguments both the sides have highlighted the CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation. There is no dispute about the contents of the CCTV footage. Mr. Bhawnani, the learned Counsel submitted that at one point of time, the CCTV footage shows that all the accused persons were proceeding in one direction, but, at another point of time, only A1 and A2 were seen coming back and immediately thereafter the deceased was 06th August 2026 PRASAD 916_BA_3692_2025.DOC assaulted by means of knife. This chronology of the event leading to the murder is not disputed by Mr. Mhatre. 7. No doubt, in the statement of the informant it is recorded that Applicant Sherali was present at the spot holding a knife, but, Mr. Bhawnani claims that Sherali was not seen in the CCTV footage holding a knife. 8. The third aspect is that both the Applicants along with other accused persons had come forward to attack the deceased. However, this fact has come on record only after five months of the incident. No doubt, two witnesses like the informant also stated the said fact. According to Mr. Mhatre, the said witnesses were not coming forward to give their statement because of fear from the accused. However, the informant, who was not under such a fear, has also took five months time to state the said fact. As per the postmortem report, the deceased had 13 injuries. But Mr. Bhawnani stated that only one stab injury was the cause of death and, it was associated with one laceration and rest were abrasions. 9. As a result, I am of the view that there is no prima facie case against the Applicants of having shared the common intention or common object to the commit the murder. As noted above, accused Kadir and Jumman are released on bail and till date, their bail is not cancelled. 10. In the wake of above, I am inclined to allow the applications. Hence, following Order :- (i) The Applicants – Mohd. Sahil Mohd. Kalim Shaikh and Mohd. Sherali Zaheer Ul Haq@ Jahiruddin Shaikh be released on bail in C.R. No.680 of 2024 registered with 06th August 2026 PRASAD 916_BA_3692_2025.DOC Dharavi Police Station, for offence punishable under Sections 103(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on their executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount. (ii) The Applicants shall mark their attendance at Dharavi Police Station, on 1st and 16th day of each calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The Applicants 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 Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against them. (v) The Applicants shall not indulge in identical activities for which they have been arraigned in this case. (vi) On being released from jail, the Applicants shall furnish their contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case there is any change. (vii) 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 Applicants and the trial Court 06th August 2026 PRASAD 916_BA_3692_2025.DOC shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 11. Bail Applications stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) 06th August 2026 PRASAD RAJENDRASING RAJPUT Digitally signed by PRASAD RAJENDRASING RAJPUT Date: 2026.08.10 18:37:43 +0530