MANOJ 901-BA-1221-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1221 OF 2026 Rahul Virendra Sharma @ Ram …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Chinmay Ghodse, Mr.Rajan Gurnani, Adv. Kaustubh Salvi & Adv. Nikita Gawai i/b. Mr. Rahul Arote, for the Applicant. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State. HC – Vinod Raut, Mira – Bhayander Police Station, Vasai-Virar, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks his release on bail in Cr.No. 232/2022 registered with Virar Police Station, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 212, 120B of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act; and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOC Act”) on the report dated 26.02.2022 filed by Mr. Shashikant Vikramsingh Chauhan. 3. The prosecution case is that since 2018, there was dispute going on between deceased Samarjeet and Rahul Dubey (A8) and others. Meanwhile, the growing dominance and business of Samarjeet gave rise to his opponents in Virar area. It is alleged that to wipe out that dominance, accused Rahul Dubey (A8), Rajkumar Yadav (A3), Sham Yadav and Anurag Pandey (A6) came together and hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. It WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2026.09.07 19:14:15 +0530 MANOJ 901-BA-1221-2026.DOC is alleged that, since 2021 these accused persons met with and telephonically contacted one life convict Subhash Singh Thaker from time to time and, gave the contract of killing the deceased through said Subhash Singh Thakur. It is alleged that, as planned, the accused persons could not commit the murder of the deceased in June 2021. Therefore, in February, 2022 said convict Subhash Singh Thakur gave a fresh contract of the murder to the applicant, accused Manish Singh, Arjun Singh (A10) and Abhishek Singh (A2). It is alleged that on 26.02.2022, the accused person did the rekkie and, at about 13:30 hours, when the deceased was approaching to his car near his office, accused Manish Singh fired at the deceased and committed his murder and then, fled alongwith the applicant on a bike. It is alleged that the accused persons also caused disappearance of the evidence. Therefore, the accused were arrested from time to time and finally, charge-sheeted. 4. Mr. Pasbola, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that, as alleged, accused Manish Singh-who shot the deceased dead was driven to the spot on a motorbike by an unknown person. The statements of the eye witnesses indicate that the said bike-rider accused was wearing a helmet on his head and his face was completely covered with a helmet. Therefore, they had no reason to see his face. There is no evidence, on the basis of which the police could have arrested the applicant and the eye witnesses have identified him in the TIP as the same person who had driven accused Manish Singh to the spot and then helped him fleeing away on the bike. There is discrepancy about the colour of the bike and the helmet which the bike rider was wearing. Therefore, the claim of the eye witnesses that they had seen the applicant at/near the spot and they identified him in the TIP, is not free from doubt. Page 2 of 5 MANOJ 901-BA-1221-2026.DOC Mr. Pasbola, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that Abhishek Singh (A2) who did the rekkie of the deceased to facilitate his murder, is released on bail. Even the other co-accused who hatched the criminal conspiracy of the murder, have been granted bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration as the prosecution is going to examine more than 100 witnesses in the case. The applicant is in jail for more than 4 years. Although, the charge is framed on 07.01.2026, till the date, no prosecution witness has been examined. Since the prosecution is going to examine more than 100 witnesses, it will certainly take some time. He submitted that the applicant had following criminal antecedents, therein, he has been acquitted. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail on merit and on the principle of parity. Sr. No. Police Station Cr.No. & Sections Status 1 Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. Cr. No. 220/2013 U/S. 302, 324, 143, 149, 37, 212, 120B of IPC and U/S. 3, 25, 27 of Arms Act Acquitted 2 Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai Cr. No. 184/2013 U/S. 307, 34 of IPC and U/S. 3, 25, 27 of Arms Act Acquitted 3 Miraroad Police Station Cr. No. 253/2015 U/S. 302, 120B of IPC and U/S. 3, 25, 27 of Arms Act Acquitted 5. In reply, Mr. Dedhia, the learned APP has submitted that, there is sufficient material against the applicant that, as a part of the criminal conspiracy, the applicant rode accused Manish Singh on his bike up-to the spot and as soon as he fired at the deceased, the applicant rode him on his bike and fled from the spot. Therefore, and having regard to the fact that this is a case of contract killing, the bail may be refused. Page 3 of 5 MANOJ 901-BA-1221-2026.DOC 6. I have considered these submissions and perused the record. The statement of certain witnesses show that just about 10 minutes prior to the murder they had seen the applicant and accused Manish Singh standing near a bike, near the spot of the murder. A red helmet was hanging on the handle of that bike. The report lodged by the informant clearly mentions that immediately after firing gunshots at the deceased, accused Manish Singh fled on the bike and at that time, the bike-rider was wearing a helmet. The description of the clothes of the applicant given in the statements of the eye-witnesses is matching with the CCTV footage of the said accused. Even the colour of the helmet is matching. No doubt, according to the witnesses, the bike was black and the helmet was gray in colour. However, it may be because in the CCTV footage, the bike and the helmet colour appears black and gray due to sun-light. Yet, on a close and careful observation of the CCTV footage, it can be easily perceived that the bike and the helmet both were of red colour. In this background, it cannot be maintained that the applicant was not seen by the eye witnesses before and after the incident. In fact, there is sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to establish the identity of the applicant as the accused who had rode the deceased on his bike before and after the murder. 7. In so far as the principle of parity is concerned, no doubt, the co-accused who had hatched the conspiracy to commit the murder have been released on bail including the one who did the rekkie. In the following cited cases, the appellant/accused before the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been released on bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration of four years or so and the prosecution was to examine many witnesses which was to take considerable time. Surendra s/o. Fattu Pipardhare v/s. State of Maharashtra Criminal Application (BA) No.862 of 2024 MANOJ 901-BA-1221-2026.DOC Ranjana Tanaji Wanve v/s. The State of Maharashtra Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12740/2024. Balwinder Singh v/s. State of Punjab and Anr. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8523/2024. However, in the case in hand, the role of the applicant is different than his co-accused. Secondly, till date no witnesses is examined by the prosecution. In the cited cases, to some extent, the facts were different; two matters were part heard and in one case no charge was framed, therefore and, having regard to the period of incarceration opposite to the prosecution witnesses to be examined in the cases, bail was granted. Therefore, in my considered view, until the eye witnesses are examined, it would not be proper to release the applicant on bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and applying the principle of parity. 8. In view of above discussion, at this stage, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected and is rejected, accordingly. 9. Having regard to the period of the incarceration, the applicant will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court after the eye witnesses are examined or after one year from today if the prosecution fails to examine the eye witnesses. 10. 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. 11. Bail Application is disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)