MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1172 OF 2026 Suraj Krishna Jaiswal …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2986 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1172 OF 2026 Inzimam Alimullah Haq IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:- Suraj Krishna Jaiswal …Intervenor …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2559 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1172 OF 2026 Suraj Krishna Jaiswal …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Indrajeet Joshi (through VC), for the Applicant. Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Karim Pathan a/w Adv. Shane Illahi, Adv.Fazal Shaikh, Adv. Shoaib Shaikh & Adv. Kehkasha Shaikh, for the Intervenor. Mr. R. J. Chandugade, PI a/w S. V. Jadhav, PSI, Pant Nagar Police Station, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2026.09.07 10:49:26 +0530 MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with Cr.No.489 of 2025 registered with Pant Nagar Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 103 (1) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), on the report dated 25th May, 2025 filed by Inzimamul Alimullad Haq – the informant. 3. The prosecution case is that on 25th May, 2025, at about 2:00 p.m. the informant and the deceased Jishan Shaikh were proceeding by car from Vikroli to Ramabai Service Road. The deceased was driving the car. At that time, one person riding a scooter was making gestures towards them by hand and talking something. Therefore, the deceased pulled down the glass of his side door. At that juncture, the scooter rider abused him. Therefore, the deceased told him to stop and he also stopped his car and got down. Thereafter, scooterist abused the deceased and suddenly, he removed a knife from a dicky of his scooter and stabbed the deceased on the chest. Thereafter, the scooterist along with the woman with him, fled from the spot. Immediately, the deceased was removed to the Rajawadi hospital, where he succumbed to the injury while undergoing medical treatment. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. 4. It is alleged that immediately after the incident, crowd had gathered there. One person from the crowd had noted the scooter registration No.“8542” on a receipt of tollgate and put that note in the car. During investigation, police collected the relevant CCTV footage and obtained the information of the scooters having similar registration number, from the RTO. Investigation revealed that, at the relevant time, the applicant was the same person who had MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC stabbed the deceased. Therefore, the applicant came to be arrested. At the instance of the applicant the knife used in offence was recovered. The informant identified the applicant in the Test Identification Parade. On completion of investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet. The Sessions Court refused to release the applicant on bail. 5. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, there is discrepancy between the description of the assailant and his scooter stated in the report and the description of the applicant and the scooter recovered from him. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the applicant has committed this offence. He submitted that, at the time of the arrest of the applicant, his scooter key was taken in charge by the police and thereafter, the police showed that scooter recovered at the instance of the applicant including the knife in the dicky. Therefore, a possibility of foisting the knife on the applicant is not ruled out. Thus, there is no prima facie case against the applicant of having committed this crime and he deserves to be released on bail. 6. In reply, Mr. Dedhia, learned APP has submitted that there is sufficient material against the applicant which shows that the applicant had stabbed the deceased and caused his murder. 7. I have considered these submissions. The material on record and the CCTV footage produced for perusal of the Court shows that, at the relevant time, the applicant was riding the Activa scooter bearing regn. no. MH-03/EN-8542 from the same road by which the car of the deceased was proceeding. The said no.8542 is matching with the Activa scooter no. noted on the tollgate receipt as stated above. In this background, the police ascertained the scooter of the applicant with its regn. no. MH-03/EN-8542 from the RTO MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC concerned. As alleged, after committing the murder, the applicant went to Sion hospital for medical treatment of his wife who had sustained some injury. This fact is confirmed with the hospital record. There is close proximity between the timings of the medical examination of the applicant’s wife and the timings of the incident. The blood stained knife is recovered from the dicky of the scooter of the applicant. In the backdrop, prima facie it appears that the applicant is the same person who had stabbed the deceased and caused his death. 8. Record clearly indicates that there is discrepancy in the description of the assailant stated in the report and the description of the applicant stated in his arrest form. As per the report, the assailant was aged 30 to 35 years, of strong built and had short hair on head. He had wore white half sleeved T-shirt and black night pant on his person. But, as recorded in the arrest form, the applicant had long hair and medium built. The CCTV footage show that the applicant had worn full sleeves white t-shirt with stripes and his pant colour does not appear black. However, considering the fact that the incident had occurred all of a sudden, said discrepancy is not significant at this stage. 9. In the wake of above, I am of the view that there is a prima facie case against the applicant and he is not entitled for bail. As a result, the bail application is rejected. 10. However, the applicant will be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after one year before this Court, if the trial is not sufficiently advanced. Page 4 of 5 MANOJ 905-BA-1172-2026.DOC 11. It is clarified that the observation made in the present Order and rejection of the prayer for the bail will not be treated as findings on the merit of the case. 12. Since opportunity of hearing was given to the informant, the aforesaid Interim application No. 2986 of 2026 seeking said relief stands disposed of, accordingly. Since the bail application is disposed of, the Interim application No. 2559 of 2026 does not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)