305-ia 589-26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 589 OF 2026 IN APPEAL NO. 568 OF 2017 Riyas Vali Mohammed Shaikh … Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents __________________________ Mr. Mohammed Ahmed Shaikh a/w. Ms. Sofiya Shaikh for the Applicant. Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Amit Gharte for Respondent No.2. Mr. Prosper D’souza for the Appellant in Appeal No. 534/17. ASI Mane, DCB, CID Unit, Mumbai present. __________________________ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 21 st AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Learned APP and learned counsel appointed through Legal Aid for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the application for bail. It is submitted that the applicant, who is accused No.5, is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120 B(1) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (I), 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, Amk 1/6 ARJUN MACHHINDRA KADAM Digitally signed by ARJUN MACHHINDRA KADAM Date: 2026.08.21 18:00:42 +0530 305-ia 589-26.doc 1999 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. The alleged incident took place on 14th March, 2011. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14th March, 2011, Mohd. Shoaib Mussa Shaikh visited the site at about 10.00 a.m. and was sitting on the footpath and thereafter he found that the security guard was sitting in the compound. At about 10.30 a.m. Samrat Devarshi visited the office. He was followed by Manoj Patil, site engineer at about 10.45 a.m. At about 11.00 a.m. Yogesh Khule (victim) who was site supervisor also visited the site and was working in the cabin. At about 11.30 a.m. two unknown persons visited the main gate when Mohd. Shoaib Mussa Shaikh inquired them as to who they are and whom they want to meet. To which they replied that they are from a courier company and want to deliver something. Mr. Mohd. Shoaib let them enter the site, but however followed them. At that time, the victim also inquired with them as to who they are to which they replied that they are from courier company. At that moment, one of the accused removed the gun from his bag and pointed it towards the victim and took him towards the cabin and closed the door of the cabin. One Mr. Samrat Devarshi was also present in the cabin. The other person pointed the gun toward the security guard. Amk 2/6 305-ia 589-26.doc 4. It is the case of the prosecution that the three persons standing outside were facing the iron sheets. They heard two shots of fire from inside the cabin. The accused threatened the person who was standing outside the cabin and one of them handed over a chit in the hands of the security guard and ran away from the spot. The victims were lying in the pool of blood. There are in all two victims. 5. The applicant-original accused No.5 was arrested from Uttar Pradesh on the confession of accused No.1 Raju Jadhav. 6. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 452, 352, 341, 342 and 506(2) read with 120 (B), 3(2) of the IPC and 3(4) of MCOC Act, 1989 and 25(1) of Arms Act. 7. In all 36 witnesses came be to examined. The applicant is now in custody for more than 15 years. We have perused the nominal roll submitted by the learned APP. Learned APP as well as learned counsel for the victim while opposing the bail application submitted that the applicant was convicted for a serious offence and that charges are under MCOC Act. It is further submitted that it is the applicant who had supplied the fire arm to the accused. 8. Our attention is invited to the findings which are at paragraph Nos.178, 179 and 180 of the Judgment and order of trial Court to submit that the cogent reasons have been given by the trial Court while convicting Amk 3/6 305-ia 589-26.doc accused No.5. It is submitted that accused No.5 has a major role and he is as much as responsible as the other accused. 9. No doubt, the offence is serious. It is pointed out that there was previous antecedent and the applicant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. However, the prosecution resulted in acquittal. 10. So far as this appeal is concerned, it may not be possible for us to give a priority hearing to this appeal considering the number of older appeals pending. In the present case, there are as many as 36 witnessess. Nominal roll indicates that the conduct of the applicant in the jail appears to be satisfactory. In our opinion, considering that the applicant has already undergone 15 years of actual imprisonment and the appeal will still take some time to be heard finally in the light of the principles laid down in Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 697, we are inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail by imposing stringent conditions. 11. Hence, the following Order:- (i) The sentence imposed by the trial Court in MCOC Special Case No. 11 of 2011 along with MCOC Special Case No. 17 of 2011 by the Judgment and order dated 5th and 6th October, 2016 in respect of the applicant-original accused No.5 - Riyaz Vali Mohammed Shaikh is Amk 4/6 305-ia 589-26.doc suspended during the pendency of the appeal. (ii) The applicant-original accused No.5 - Riyas Vali Mohammed Shaikh is enlarged on bail in MCOC Special Case No. 11 of 2011 along with MCOC Special Case No. 17 of 2011 on his furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent local sureties in the like amount. (iii) The applicant-original accused No.5 shall not enter jurisdiction of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban District, Thane District and Palghar District during the pendency of the appeal. (iv) The applicant-original accused No.5 shall report once in a month on every first Monday of the month commencing October, 2026 between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m to the nearest police station close to his residence. (v) The applicant shall furnish the details of his residential address and contact details to the trial Court and deposit his passport in the trial Court before his enlargement on bail. (vi) The applicants shall remain present at the time of final hearing of the appeal. (vii) In case of two consecutive defaults in attendance, prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. (viii) It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on bail Amk 5/6 305-ia 589-26.doc only after the fine amount has been paid. 12. The Interim Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Amk 6/6