P.H. JAYANI 906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3761 OF 2025 Aayush Sanjay Pandey …. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1512 OF 2026 Nikhil Manekji Chandal @ Nikhil Manakji Chandal …. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1526 OF 2026 Uday Sanjay Bali …. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Veerdhawal Kakade for the Applicant in BA/3761/2025. Mr. Prashant Pandey a/w. Mr. Dinesh Jadhwani, Ms. Riddhima Mangaonkar and Ms. Neha Balani i/b. W3 Legal LLP for the Applicant in BA/1512/2026 and in BA/1526/2026. Mr. Vinit Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. Sanjay Marathe, PI, IO, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The applicants (original Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively) seek their release on bail in Sessions Case No.121/2022 pending P.H. JAYANI 906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi. Said case arises out of Crime No. 891/2021 registered with Dahisar Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 396, 397, 109, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 3, 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 on the Report dated 30.06.2021 lodged by Mr. Dhiraj B. Pandey. 3. The prosecution case is that on 30.06.2021, at about 10:30 a.m., three unknown persons entered in M/s. Sai Jewellers, at Dahisar (“the shop), caused murder of Shailendra Pandey–the shop owner, firing two bullets at him and robbed gold ornaments worth Rs.10 Lakhs. Said incident was recorded in the CCTV installed that shop. Therefore, said crime came to be registered. Police arrested the applicants from, Surat, Gujarat. On the same day A4 and A5 were arrested. During interrogation, A1–Aayush made a disclosure statement leading to recovery of 4 stolen ornaments weighing about 5 tolas, and clothes of A1 to A3, which they had their person at the time of the incident. Two empty cartridges and shell of a bullet were found in the pant of A2, recovered by A1. Additionally, A1 recovered the motorbike which was used by the these accused to flee away after commission of the crime. Insofar as A2–Nikhil is concerned, his disclosure statement led to pointing out the swampy nullah, where he had allegedly thrown the firearm used in the crime. As alleged, after arresting A3–Uday when he was brought to the police station, a firearm, 4 live cartridges and one stolen gold ornament were seized from his possession under arrest panchanama. 25 stolen gold ornaments (total 13 tolas) were recovered from A4, who was the alleged mastermind of this crime. Page 2 of 7 P.H. JAYANI 906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC 2 stolen gold ornaments were recovered from A5. It was followed by arrest of A6 and A7, but, there is no recovery from them. The TIP was successful against Accused Nos. 2 and 3. On completion of investigation, all seven accused stood charge-sheeted. The bail applications of A1 to A3 met with rejection from the trial Court. Hence, these applications. 4. Mr. Kakade and Mr. Pandey, the learned Advocates for the respective applicants have submitted that admittedly, all these applicants had entered in the shop with their faces partly masked like in COVID-19 condition. There was no possibility of their faces getting sufficiently captured in the CCTV footage nor seen by the witnesses concerned including witness – Karna Bharwad. Therefore, the FSL report mentions that the faces of these applicants are similar to the faces of the offenders seen in the CCTV footage. The two bullets retrieved from the body of the deceased are not conclusively opined to be fired by the weapon recovered from A3. The TIP was conducted on 12.08.2021, i.e., after 40 days of the arrest of A1 to A3. Although witness Karna Bharwad identified A1 before the Court, he could not identify him (A1) during the TIP. Therefore, identification of A1 to A3 before the trial Court by the same witness is not reliable. They submitted that since prima facie it is not shown that the fire arm allegedly recovered by A3 is one of the weapons of the offence, the recovery of other articles is also not reliable. They submitted that these accused are in jail for more than 5 years. Their co-accused including A4–the master mind of the crime has been released on bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration as the trial had not advanced. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for bail on merit as well as applying the principle of parity. Page 3 of 7 P.H. JAYANI 906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC 5. In reply, Mr. Kulkarni, the learned APP reproduced the prosecution case as aforestated. In short, Mr. Kulkarni has submitted that there is an overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence against the applicants which made out a strong prima facie case against them of having committed the present offence in association with their co-accused. He submitted that the role attributed to these applicants is different than their co-accused. Therefore, according to him this is not a case for bail. 6. I have considered these submissions. The bank statements on record indicate that, the fire arms used in the offence were purchased through accused Pramod Dube. Statement of Rushikumar Sharma indicates that accused - Banti had booked the tickets for A1 to A3 to travel from Pithampur (MP) to Mumbai. The material on record indicate that, on 29.06.2021, A4 had taken the co-accused persons in his Honda City Car and visited the Idali Dosa shop of witness Joseph Nadar. At that time, said witness had seen A4 and accused - Ankit Mahadik. Mr. Paresh Sahu, owner of the scooter, had filed a report of theft of his scooter on 29.06.2021 from Dahisar police area. On the same day, recce of the shop was done by A4 and he had showed that shop to A1 to A3. At the time of the incident, certain witnesses were present near the shop of the incident. Cumulatively, their statement indicate that on 30.06.2021, at about 10.10 hrs., Ayush Pande (A1) was seen parking his scooter at an ATM centre, which was near the jewellery shop. Witness Prakash Rao had seen these accused persons on 30.06.2021, at about 10.15 hrs., when they were talking with each other, standing near his wine shop. When witness Jitendra Panchal was withdrawing money from the ATM centre, he had heard noise of bursting cracker. Further, he had seen these P.H. JAYANI 906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC three accused persons fleeing on a scooter. Witness Mr. Karna Bharvad also had seen A2 and A3 coming out of the jewellery shop and then, the three accused persons fleeing away on the scooter, which was with A1. Witness Prakash Rao had also seen A1, while blowing the scooter horn and then A2 and A3 coming out of the jewellery shop, sitting on the scooter and fleeing away. Witness Mohannath Yadav had seen the three, while fleeing away on the scooter. Witness Pramod Dube had recorded a video of A1 while he was blowing the horn and fleeing when A2 and A3 came there. Witness Lavkant Ojha has stated that, after committing the robbery, A1 to A4 visited him at his place in Barbodhan village, District Surat, as he was acquainted with A1. Then, the four requested Lavkant Ojha to help them in selling the stolen gold ornaments. The mobile phone recovered from A1 belongs to his father whereas the mobile phones recovered by A2 and A3 belong to them. The CDR and SDR of these mobile phones indicate that at the relevant time these accused were in contact with each other and they had come to the location of the jewellery shop on 29th and 30th June. The CCTV footage in question is examined by the expert. He opined that certain characteristics of these applicants are similar to the characteristics of the offenders seen in the CCTV footage. There is recovery of clothes of all the accused persons from A1. All these clothes are tallying with the CCTV footage. There is recovery of gold ornaments and firearm, etc. as stated above. Police had no reason to foist these articles against the accused persons and falsely book them in this case. Therefore, the discrepancy pointed P.H. JAYANI 906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC about in the ballistic expert’s Report is not sufficient to doubt the involvement of the applicants in this case. 7. Thus, there is a prima facie case against the applicants. 8. At present, only PW1 is examined and he is part heard. Considering the facts of the case, the release of the applicant may result in pressuring the aforesaid material witnesses and panchas to prevent them from deposing in favour of the prosecution. 9. No doubt, the period of incarceration of these applicants is more than the co-accused persons who have been released on bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. However, what distinguishes their case is the act of executing the actual conspiracy to commit the present offence by cool-headedly murdering the deceased and looting his shop. Therefore, till the examination of the aforesaid material witnesses, the ground of prolonged incarceration will be of no avail to the applicants. 10. In view of the above discussion, none of the applicants is entitled for bail. As a result, the Bail Applications are rejected. 11. By way of an abundant caution it is clarified that any observation made in the present Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 12. The trial Court is requested to expedite the trial. Considering the fact that four accused are released on bail, liberty is given to the applicants to renew their prayer for bail after a period of nine months if there is no advancement in the trial. Page 6 of 7 P.H. JAYANI 906 BA3761.2025 WITH 2 OTHERS.DOC 13. Since this Court was shown the alleged CCTV footage of the incident and till the date, it is not provided to the accused persons, the prosecution is directed to provide a copy of the said CCTV footage to each accused within three days from today. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.10.03 17:26:00 +0530