1 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2026 APPELLANT : Sohel Khan Yunus Khan, (In Jail) Aged about - 23 years, Occu - Labourer, R/o Tayade Nagar, Yavatmal, Tq. Yavatmal, Dist – Yavatmal. V E R S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Yavatmal City, Tq- Yavatmal, Dist – Yavatmal. 2. Sanjivani Manoj Datar, Aged about - 32 years, Occu – Housewife, R/o Sejal Residency, Yavatmal, Tq - Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Akshay Naik, Senior Counsel a/b Shri Imram Deshmukh and Shri Yuvraj Dhande, Advocates for appellant. Mrs. H. S. Dhande, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Ms. Nisha Gajbhiye-Wasnik, Advocate (Appointed) for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 22/09/2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at the stage of admission. 2026:BHC-NAG:12630 2 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt 2. By the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), the appellant/accused takes exception to the order dated 06/02/2026 passed below Exh.3 in Special Case No. 118/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, thereby declined to enlarge the appellant / accused on regular bail in connection with Crime No.597/2025 registered with Yavatmal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 3. Heard Shri Akshay Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mrs. H. S. Dhande, learned APP appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms. Nisha Gajbhiye, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 at length. 4. Having regard to the submissions canvassed by both the sides, I have gone through the record. 5. It is a matter of record that on 04/06/2025, the respondent No.2 / informant lodged a report with Yavatmal City Police Station alleging that, earlier on 07/02/2024, her brother 3 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt Manish Sagar Shendre had committed murder of Shabad Khan at Kalamb Chouk, Yavatmal and since then, her brother was in jail. On 11/04/2025, her brother Manish Sagar Shendre was bailed out in pursuance of the order of the High Court. On 03/06/2025 at about 10.30 a.m., her brother Manish Sagar Shendre was asked to visit the Garage of Munna to repair the two wheeler of Manoj Datar, husband of informant. Accordingly, her brother Manish Shendre took the Moped of her husband at the Garage of Munna and at about 5.00 p.m., a phone call was received from Munna Garage for taking the repaired Moped. Accordingly, at 5.20 p.m., she dropped her brother Manish Shendre at the Garage of Munna and then left for the Nehru Stadium to drop her daughter. When she was returning back after dropping her daughter, she found some persons running near Munna Garage. 6. At that time, she noticed some persons were running away and her brother Manish Shendre was lying in a pool of blood and a knife was stuck in the neck of her brother. Further, she also found injuries on armpit of her brother and some other injuries on the other parts of body of her brother. At that time, one person uttered that they took revenge and they would be released on bail within two months. Thereafter, the informant 4 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt came to know from other persons that the accused No.1 – Mosim Khan Ayub Khan, accused No.2 – Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan, accused No.3 – Danish @ Sabha Salim Ahmed, accused No.4 – Alim Khan Rashid Khan, accused No.5 – Sohel Khan Yusuf Khan and accused No.6 – Sk. Kashid Sk. Farid committed the murder of her brother just to take revenge for the murder of Shabad Khan occurred on 07/02/2024. On the basis of said oral report, Crime No.597/2025 is registered against the present appellant and others. 7. The Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and recorded statements of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer also drew the Spot Panchnama, Inquest Panchnama and referred the dead body of deceased Manish Shendre for autopsy. As per the Post-Mortem Report, multiple injuries were found as mentioned in Para Nos.20 and 21. As per the Expert Report, death of deceased - Manish Sagar Shendre was caused due to stab injuries. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that, during the course of investigation, the accused Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan was interrogated and he 5 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt made a statement about committing murder the deceased Manish Shendre on the on which he may release of bail in the crime of committing of Shabad Khan but it was not futile. 9. On 02/06/2025, he (Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan) and other accused came to know about presence of deceased Manish Shendre in the village. On the day of incident, Juber @ Pappu provided knife for committing the murder. Thereafter they visited the Garage of Munna, where they noticed the presence of deceased Manish Shendre. Thereafter, the accused Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan gave call to another accused Danish @ Sabha Salim Ahmed and informed about presence of Manish Shendre at Munna' s Garage. Thereafter, he gave call to main accused Juber @ Pappu. 10. Then, accused Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan and Mosim Khan Ayub Khan visited a Pan Shop and then towards the Munna Garage. The accused Faizan Khan also informed Alim Khan Rashid Khan about proceeding towards Munna Garage and asked to come from Sanjivani Hospital Galli towards Chandani Chauk. Thereafter, all the three accused persons i.e. Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan, Mosim Khan Ayub Khan and Alim Khan Rashid Khan stopped at the corner of Sanjivani 6 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt Hospital. Thereafter, they confirmed about presence of deceased Manish Shendre at Munna' s Garage and proceeded on Motorcycle toward Munna' s Garage. Thereafter, the accused Mosim Khan alighted from two wheeler and stabbed the deceased Manish Shendre with knife. In the meantime, the another accused Saba and Salil visited there in Auto-Rickshaw. Thereafter, the accused Sabad took knife and started stabbing the deceased Manish Shende. Thereafter, the accused Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan also started stabbing with knife to the deceased but said knife got stuck in the neck of the deceased. Thereafter, all of them fled away from the spot. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that the confessional statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 30 of the Evidence Act is not admissible and on the basis of said confessional statement, the co-accused cannot be implicated. Further, the confessional statement of accused Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan does not disclose about involvement of the present appellant / accused Sohel Khan Yusuf Khan while committing crime but it shows that the present appellant / accused only helped the other accused while fleeing from the City of Yavatmal. Since the appellant/accused was not 7 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt present at the spot of incident at the time of commission of crime, therefore, the present appellant/accused was not a member of the unlawful assembly and no role has been attributed against the present appellant / accused, therefore, the appellant/applicant is entitled for the bail. 12. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 13, wherein it has been held that while granting bail in non-bailable offences, the Court required to consider the nature and seriousness of offence, character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused has not been secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public or the State or other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. So also, confessional statement of the co-accused is very weak type of evidence which can be at the best be taken into consideration to lend assurance to the prosecution case and the confession of the co-accused persons cannot be treated as a substantive evidence and can be pressed into service 8 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt only when the Court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of its conclusion deducible from the said evidence. 13. Per contra, the learned APP as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 strongly opposed the appeal. The learned APP as well as the counsel for the respondent No.2 canvassed that the present appellant / accused was aware about the hatching of conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased Manish Shendre. The appellant/accused was aware about committing murder of deceased but he helped the other accused while fleeing away from the spot and city. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for bail because the offence is of serious nature and there is every possibility that if committing the same nature of crime, the appellant / accused is released on bail. 14. Needless to say that as per the contents of FIR on 03/06/2025, the informant dropped her brother deceased Manish Shendre at the Garage of Munna for bringing the repaired Moped of her husband and thereafter, she visited Stadium to drop her daughter. When she was returning from the Stadium, at that time, she found some persons were running and her brother Manish Shendre was lying in a pool of blood and knife was stuck in his 9 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt neck. Thereafter, the informant came to know from the people that the accused persons namely; 1] Mosim Khan Ayub Khan, 2] Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan, 3] Danish @ Sabha Salim Ahmed, 4] Alim Khan Rashid Khan, 5] Sohel Khan Yusuf Khan (appellant) and 6] Sk. Kashid Sk. Farid committed murder of her brother to take revenge of murder committed by her brother (deceased) of Shabad Khan by firing on 07/02/2024 at Kalamb Chouk, Yavatmal. On face of record it appears that the informant is not an eye-witness. 15. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses including statement of eye-witness Mr. Imran Khan Jainulla Khan @ Munna, a Mechanical. After considering the statement of Imran Khan @ Munna it appears that he saw two persons on a motorcycle and two other persons were coming by running and four of them started assaulting with knife to the deceased Manish Shendre, however, when Manish Shendre started running, at that time, the accused Mosim Khan Ayub Khan followed and assaulted the deceased with knife. Similarly, the accused Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan stabbed the deceased with knife. When the deceased Manish Shendre tried to escape from the clutches of the assailants but they chased the deceased and inflicted multiple stabs. 10 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt 16. The statements of eye-witness indicates that the accused Mosim Khan Ayub Khan and Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan were having knife. However, the knife from the hand of Mosim Khan fell down but another accused took the knife and assaulted on neck of the deceased but said knife was stuck. 17. On perusal of statements of other witnesses Suraj Babanrao Panse, Sk. Sakir Sk. Faruq, Manoj Ravindra Datar, Arbaz Khan Mumtaj Khan, Kaif Nazir Sheikh, Faraq Khan Jai Mundla Khan and other witnesses it does not reveal that at the time of assault on the deceased, present appellant / accused was present at the spot or he was a member of the unlawful assembly at the time of committing crime. Nonetheless, as per the confessional statement of co-accused, it prima facie appears that after committing crime, all the accused persons fled away from the spot in Auto-Rickshaw towards Pandharkawada Road and they parked said auto-rickshaw near Nagpur Highway Road. Thereafter, the co- accused Faizan Khan @ Sahil Mehmood Khan gave call to his brother present appellant/accused Sohel @ Anna who visited there on his Motorcycle and then the accused persons proceeded from motorcycle and later sat in the truck for fleeing towards Nagpur. Thereafter, they alighted on Dhaba Wadki Nagpur Road, where they were arrested by the police. 11 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt 18. As per the memorandum statement of another co- accused, it appears that the accused persons have concealed their clothes, which have been seized by the I. O. under the seizure panchnama. 19. Needless to say that, T-shirt of the present appellant/accused was found containing blood stains but as per the memorandum statement recorded u/s 30 of the Evidence Act, the present appellant/accused and other 2 co-accused had proceeded on the motorcycle. Therefore, there is every possibility that the blood stains appearing on T-Shirt of the present appellant might have appeared because of fresh blood stains on the clothes of other accused, who were accompanying with the present appellant on Motorcycle. The prosecution has not brought any material on record to show that any incriminatory evidence is required to be seized from the appellant or his custody is required for interrogation purpose. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant/accused has made out a prima facie case to enlarge him on bail during the pendency of the trial. 20. On 02/06/2026, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order and declined to release the appellant / accused on 12 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt ground that the present appellant/ accused helped the assailants/other accused to flee away after committing the offence. Therefore, the impugned order is not justified and liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :- ORDER i] The appeal is allowed. ii] The impugned order dated 06/02/2026 passed below Exh.3 in Special Case No.118/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii] The appellant / accused – Sohel Khan Yunus Khan be released on bail in connection with Crime No.597/2025 registered with Yavatmal City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties in the like amount. iv] The appellant shall not contact any prosecution witnesses and shall not issue any threat. v] The appellant shall supply two Cell Numbers of his nearest relatives. vi] The appellant shall attend the trial on each and every day. 13 3-J-APPEAL-281-2026-CORRECTED.odt vii] It is made clear that the continuous absence of two days shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. viii] The fees of the appointed counsel for respondent No.2 be quantified and paid as per rules. [JUDGE] Choulwar Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 19:16:52