Bombay High Court
Shamshul @ Samsu Jangej Sajjad ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 August, 2022
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/4 36 BA-1290-22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1230 OF 2022
Shamshul @ Samsu Jangej Sajjad .. Applicant
Khan
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Ms.Anjali Mishra with Ms.Angela Singha i/b Mr.Ramesh
Mishra for the Applicant.
Mr.S.H.Yadav, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 17th AUGUST, 2022
P.C:-
1. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with
C.R.No.206 of 2018 on 27/09/2018.
2. C.R.No.206 of 2018, which invokes Section 302 read with
Section 34 of IPC, arraign four persons as accused, the
applicant being arraigned as accused No.4. On the charge-
sheet being fled against the three accused persons, he was
shown as a wanted accused.
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2022 16:27:05 :::
2/4 36 BA-1290-22.doc
3. The three accused persons were tried in Sessions Case
No.1112 of 1998 by the Sessions Court at Mumbai and by
judgment dated 06/12/2003, accused Nos.1 to 3 came to be
acquitted of the charges and were directed to be released, if not
required in any other case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant by relying upon the
said judgment, would submit that the applicant also deserves
an acquittal, since before the Sessions Court, prosecution was
not able to bring any evidence, either direct or circumstantial,
to link the accused persons to the crime in question. She
would submit that while answering point No.1 framed, as to
whether the death of Ekbal Samad Khan was homicidal, it was
answered in the affrmative, but acquittal of the accused
persons is on the ground that the prosecution has failed to
prove that accused Nos.1 to 3 had caused the homicidal death.
When the judgment placed on record in Sessions Case
No.1112 of 1998 is perused, accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of
the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, as
the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the
accused.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant was not absconding, but he was in judicial custody in
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2022 16:27:05 :::
3/4 36 BA-1290-22.doc
connection with some other C.R. and, therefore, his arrest was
shown as on 27/09/2018.
6. Considering the case of the prosecution having failed
against all other three accused persons, the fate of the trial of
the applicant can also be assumed, to result in similar
conclusion. However, he will have to undergo the trial and it is
the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that
the trial has not yet commenced.
In the wake of the accusations levelled against the
applicant in the charge-sheet and in the light of the acquittal of
the three accused persons, where the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish their guilt, the applicant deserve
his release on bail in connection with Sessions Case No.317 of
2018.
: ORDER :
(a) Application is allowed.
(b) Applicant -Shamshul @ Samsu Jangej Sajjad
Khan shall be released on bail in connection with
C.R.No.206 of 1998 registered with Andheri Police
Station on furnishing P.R. Bond to the extent of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount,
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/4 36 BA-1290-22.doc
unless he is detained in custody in connection with other
crime.
(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Offcer. The
applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(d) The applicant shall attend the trial on regular
basis unless and until exempted by the trial Court.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
