65-REVN-392-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2026 Mohammad Nisar Raza Lal Mohammad ...Applicant VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Abdul Raheem Bukhari, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Malik, PI, Bhiwandi City, present. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the impugned order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwandi, Thane, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the discharge application of the applicant. 2. It is prosecution’s case that the accused No.1 murdered the son of the first informant and applicant helped him to dispose of the dead body, which was buried in a shop. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that, except the confessional statement of accused No.1, no evidence is produced on record to show the involvement of the applicant in the crime. No CDR is produced on record to show that, on the day of the incident, the applicant SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.10.01 18:51:10 +0530 65-REVN-392-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje was in contact with the accused No.1. However, this fact has not been considered by the learned Judge, which is erroneous and requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP that minor son of the first informant was brutally murdered by accused No.1. The applicant helped him to bury the dead body in a shop. The said dead body was recovered pursuant to the confessional statement of accused No.1. In investigation, it revealed that applicant had helped accused No.1 in disposing of the dead body. There is prima facie case against the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to reject the application. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. The allegation against the applicant is that he helped the accused No.1 to dispose of the dead body of the deceased. Except the confessional statement of accused No.1, nothing is produced on record against the applicant to show his involvement in the crime. It is settled principal of law that the confessional statement of the co-accused cannot, be acted upon against another co-accused. However, this fact has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Considering this fact, no case is made out against the applicant and I pass following order. 65-REVN-392-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje ORDER (i) The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant is discharged in the Sessions Case No. 377 of 2025 arising out of C.R.No. 385 of 2020 registered with Bhiwandi Police Station. (iii) All pending applications, if any, also disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)