1 2-APPEAL-150-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2026 SHEIKH SAMEER S/O RAFIK SHEIKH Vrs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court' s or Judge' s Order Coram, appearances, Court' s Orders or directions and Registrar' s order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A. C. Jaltare and Shri S. D. Umredkar, Advocates for appellant. Shri H. D. Dubey, APP for respondent No.1. Shri A. R. Fule, Advocate (Appointed) for respondent No.2. CORAM: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATE : 10/09/2026. 1. Heard Shri A. C. Jaltare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri. H. D. Dubey, learned APP appearing for the respondent No.1 and Shri A. R. Fule, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 / informant. 2. By the present appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the order dated 11/02/2026 passed in Criminal Bail Application No.128/2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal, thereby declined to enlarge the appellant/accused on regular bail in connection with Crime No.671/2025 registered with Police Station, Wani for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, r/w Section 3(2)(v) and 6 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2026:BHC-NAG:12316 2 2-APPEAL-150-2026.odt 3. On perusal of record, it appears that on 15/10/2025 at about 11.00 hours, the respondent No.2 / informant lodged FIR alleging that, she is a member of the scheduled caste and her married son, Manoj Wankhede with his wife Smt. Rani Wankhede, and her two grand- sons were residing adjacent to her house. Her son Manoj Wankhede was doing the painting work and her daughter- in-law Smt. Rani Wankhede was allegedly having illicit relations with the accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar. Further, her daughter-in-law Rani had fled away with said accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar prior to 2-3 months of lodging of the FIR, therefore, a report was lodged, however, subsequently her daughter in-law Smt. Rani returned. 4. The informant further alleged that, the accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar was always on visiting term at house of her son, hence, the accused No.1 Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar was well aware of the caste of her deceased son. On 14/10/2025 at about 8.00 p.m., her deceased son had dropped his sons at the gate of his house and went out. In the night time, the informant was sleeping at her home but her son Manoj did not return till 11.00 p.m. Therefore, she inquired with her daughter-in- law Smt. Rani regarding whereabouts of Manoj, the son of informant and husband of Smt. Rani. Thereafter, the informant gave call on mobile of her son Manoj but it was not answered though phone was ringing. Thereafter, in the mid-night, at about 1.00 a.m., she found that Manoj’ s Mobile Phone was switched off. Thereafter, she alongwith 3 2-APPEAL-150-2026.odt others searched for Manoj but he was not traceable, hence, the missing report was lodged. 5. After the informant returned home, her daughter-in-law (Smt.Rani) disclosed to her that, someone who was a contractor from Nagpur was intending to offer liquor to Manoj. She also suspected that Manoj might have accompanied with said contractor. Thereafter, on 15/10/2025 at about 11.00 a.m., the informant came to know about the murder of her son After the informant returned home, her daughter-in-law (Smt.Rani) disclosed to her that, someone who was a contractor from Nagpur was intending to offer liquor to Manoj. She also suspected that Manoj might have accompanied with said contractor. Subsequently, she came to know that, the accused No.1 Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar, his friends Shubham Shrikant Kashettiwar, Mangesh Guru Kudmethe and Sheikh Sameer s/o Rafik Sheikh (present appellant/accused) assaulted her son Manoj with a sharp weapon on his head, stomach and slit his throat and committed the murder of her son Manoj. Further, the appellant accused and his associates tied a stone to the waist of the deceased Manoj and threw him into the tank of G.S. Oil Mill situated on Bhalar Road. 6. On the basis of said report, Crime No.671/2025 was registered on 15/10/2025 with Wani Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(2)(v) and 6 of 4 2-APPEAL-150-2026.odt the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently canvassed that, while lodging the FIR, the name of present appellant / accused was not been disclosed by the informant and initially, missing complaint regarding Manoj was lodged. The prosecution has not brought any material on record to implicate the present appellant / accused in the crime. 8. As per the statement of Smt. Rani Manoj Wankhede (wife of the deceased), recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.), she had illicit relations with the accused No.1 – Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar,. She stated that, on 12/10/2025 at about 12.30 a.m., the accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar visited her house and at that time, when her mother-in- law i.e. present informant woke up on hearing the noise, and abused accused No.1 – Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar in filthy language. Thereafter at about 1.00 a.m., the informant made a call to Manoj. At the same time, when Smt. Rani (wife of deceased) inquired with accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar regarding the whereabouts of her husband Manoj. Thereafter, Manoj immediately made a call to accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar and inquired as to why he had visited his house. Accused No.1 Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar answered that he should come to visit Chandrapur. At that time, Smt. Rani had requested her husband not to visit Chandrapur. On 13/10/2025, at about 10.30 a.m., when she (Smt. Rani) attended her 5 2-APPEAL-150-2026.odt work at the Electrical Shop and returned at about 7.00 p.m., but she did not notice the presence of her husband Manoj. 9. It is further canvassed that, Smt.Rani (wife of the deceased) stated that, on 14/10/2025 at about 10.30 a.m., her husband Manoj dropped her at S. S. Electrical Shop Enterprises, Jama Majid and thereafter attended his painting work and at about 7.00 p.m., her husband returned. Since her employer had given her Rs.1,000/- for the purchase of dress material. Therefore, she asked her husband to wait there and visited the shop for purchasing the dress material. Thereafter, the deceased had dropped her at her house. In the night time at about 10.00 p.m., her husband Manoj visited the Gate of her house on foot and left after informing her that, he would return within half an hour but despite repeated calls, his phone was not answered. Thereafter at about 12.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., when her mother-in-law, i.e. informant, called Manoj on his mobile phone but there was no response and when Smt. Rani inquired with accused No.1 Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar, whereabouts of her husband Manoj, at that time, he (Accused No.1 Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar) disclosed about having committed the murder of Manoj. The statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. further reveals that, when Smt. Rani, asked the accused No.1 as to why he killed her husband at that time, the accused No.1 simply answered that, as he had decided to kill her husband and, hence, he committed his murder. 6 2-APPEAL-150-2026.odt 10. On the face of record, it appears that after the arrest of accused No.1 Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar, he was interrogated, and effected the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. During the interrogation, the accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar disclosed that, on 14/10/2025, at about 9.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m., he with the help of his Associates Shubham Kashettiwar, Mangesh Guru Kudmethe and Sheikh Sameer Rafik Sheikh, liquor was administered to Manoj Gangadhar Wankhede then they assaulted Manoj with a Steel Rod on head and slit his throat with a sharp weapon (Kati), due to which Manoj died, thereafter his body was thrown into the water tank by tying a stone to his waist. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that the statement recorded under Section 23(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not admissible. So also, the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not admissible, unless it has been proved by the cogent and substantial evidence. 12. It is further canvassed that the memorandum statement made by co-accused is not binding upon the other co-accused. The prosecution brought nothing on record to implicate the present appellant/ accused in the crime, hence, the present appellant/accused is entitled for bail. 13. Per contra, the learned APP canvassed that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer shows that during the intervening night of 14/10/2025 and 7 2-APPEAL-150-2026.odt 15/10/2025, the present appellant/accused was accompanying other co-accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar, co-accused No.2 - Shubham Shrikant Kashettiwar and accused No.3 - Mangesh Guru Kudmethe. After forcefully administering liquor to the deceased all of them assaulted the deceased with blunt and hard object on his head. Further, they slit throat of the deceased with a sharp weapon. In order to cause disappearance of evidence, they tied a stone to deceased' s waist and threw the dead body into a water tank. Therefore it prima facie appears that the accused persons have committed the brutal murder of the deceased and attempted to conceal the dead body of the deceased. So also, after committing the murder, tied a stone to the waist of the deceased and threw the body of deceased into Water Tank. Needless to say that throwing the dead body into the tank could not have been done by one person, unless others, including the present appellant/accused had assisted the main accused. Therefore, the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is sufficient to implicate the present appellant/accused in the said crime. So also, the Trial Court framed the charge on 07/04/2026, and the trial of the said crime is likely to commence. Therefore, if the appellant / accused is released on bail, the possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out; hence, the learned APP prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. It is submitted that, as per the material brought on record, it prima facie appears that during the intervening night of 14/10/2025 and 15/10/2025, the 8 2-APPEAL-150-2026.odt present appellant/accused was associated and accompanied by the other accused, namely accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar, accused No.2- Shubham Shrikant Kashettiwar, and accused No.3- Mangesh Guru Kudmethe. No doubt, there is no eye-witness to the commission of the murder of the deceased Manoj Wankhede. However, according to the circumstantial evidence brought on record, it prima facie appears that, the informant Jaimala Gangadhar Wankhede, mother of the deceased and Smt. Rani, wife of Manoj Wankhede had seen the presence of accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar at the house of the deceased. The other circumstantial evidence shows that the present appellant/ accused Sheikh Sameer Rafik Sheikh aided the accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar while committing the murder and throwing dead body of Manoj into Water Tank. 15. No doubt, the statement made by the co- accused under Section 23(2) of the Evidence Act is not sufficient to implicate the other co-accused, however, on perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that the another accused Mangesh Guru Kudmethe also disclosed about his involvement as well as of the accused No.1 - Mohd. Wajid Mohd. Majhar, accused No.2 - Shubham Shrikant Kashettiwar and Sheikh Sameer s/o Rafik Sheikh (present appellant/accused) in respect of administering liquor to the deceased and assaulting him on the head with steel rod and slit his throat. Thereafter, they tied a stone to the waist of the deceased and threw his body into the tank. Therefore, it prima facie appears that at the time of 9 2-APPEAL-150-2026.odt committing the murder of deceased, the present appellant / accused was very much present at the spot and in furtherance of common intention committed the murder of deceased Manoj. 16. Needless to say that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material on the record which is sufficient to frame the charge against the present appellant/accused and to try the said offence. 17. Considering the punishment provided under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, I do not find that the accused has made out a substantial case to enlarge him on bail during the course of the trial. 18. In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed, and no interference is called for, in the impugned order. 19. The fees of the appointed counsel shall be quantified and paid as per the Rules. 20. The applications pending, if any, are disposed of accordingly. [JUDGE] Choulwar Signed by: V.M. Choulwar (VMC) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/09/2026 19:15:54