Bombay High Court

Sohail Salim Ansari vs State Of Maharashtra on 14 August, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:35308-DB 907 IA 4576-23 IN APEAL 410-22-CR.DOC

Priya Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4576 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.410 OF 2022

Sohail Salim Ansari ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

Mr. Prashant Pandey with Mr. Irfan Unwala, Ms. Ridhima
Mangaonkar, Mr. Dinesh Jadhwani and Ms. Sumati Gupta
i/by W3Legal LLP, for the Applicant.
Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP, for the Respondent-State.

CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATED: 14TH AUGUST, 2025.
PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the
Applicant, and Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, learned APP for the
Respondent/State.

2. The Applicant herein, viz., Sohail Salim Ansari, alongwith
five other accused persons, were made to face trial in connection
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA
PRIYA RAJESH
RAJESH SOPARKAR
SOPARKAR Date:
2025.08.14
19:34:33
+0530
Page 1 of 7
th
14 August, 2025.

::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:58:11 :::
907 IA 4576-23 IN APEAL 410-22-CR.DOC

with Sessions Case No.44 of 2015 arising out of Crime No.497 of
2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali
Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai.

3. On conclusion of the trial, by the judgment dated 23 rd
December, 2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had
convicted the Applicant/original accused No.1 and three other
accused persons, viz., original accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, for
committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323,
506(2) r/w Sections 149, 143, 144 and 148 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and sentenced each of them to suffer the major
sentence of imprisonment of life and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/-
each, with default stipulation.

4. Assailing the judgment dated 23rd December, 2021, the
Applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.410 of 2022, which is
pending disposal before this Court.

5. It has been projected that the Applicant is in jail for a period
of more than 10 and ½ years. He is pursuing his higher studies as a
student of law. Moreover, the co-accused have been released on
bail. Therefore, considering the facts of this case, this Interim
Application filed under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
suspend jail sentence of the Applicant and also to release him on
bail be allowed by this Court.

Page 2 of 7
th
14 August, 2025.

::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:58:12 :::
907 IA 4576-23 IN APEAL 410-22-CR.DOC

6. By referring to the material on record, Mr. Prashant Pandey,
learned counsel for the Applicant has argued that from the medical
evidence it is clear that the Applicant was not responsible for the
fatal injury causing death of the deceased. Moreover, since there is
evidence to suggest that incident was preceded by a sudden
quarrel, the present, according to Mr. Pandey, could at best be a
case of conviction under Section 304 Part-II and no further.

7. By referring to the orders dated 23 rd June, 2022 passed in
Criminal Interim Application No.1096 of 2022 (Coram : Revati
Mohite-Dere and V. G. Bisht, JJ.) as well as the Order dated 21 st
July, 2022 passed in Interim Application No.2026 of 2022, both
arising out of Criminal Appeal No.410 of 2022, whereby the
original accused Nos.3 and 2, respectively, have been granted bail
by this Court, Mr. Pandey has argued that by applying the principle
of parity, the Applicant be also released on bail.

8. Mr. Pandey has further submitted that the order of
suspension of jail sentence, as prayed for, would facilitate further
studies of the Applicant. He has also assured this Court that the
bail order, as prayed for, if granted, the Applicant would abide by
any and all conditions imposed by this Court.

9. Opposing the prayer made in the bail application, Mr.
Kulkarni, learned APP appearing for the State has argued that
specific role has been ascribed to the Applicant for causing
grievious injury to the deceased by means of a sword. Therefore, it

Page 3 of 7
th
14 August, 2025.

::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:58:12 :::
907 IA 4576-23 IN APEAL 410-22-CR.DOC

cannot be said that there was no intent on the part of the Applicant
to cause death of the deceased. Contending that there are of three
eye witnesses, viz., PW 10, 15 and 19 in this case, Mr. Kulkarni
submits that the prosecution case is firmly established by the
cogent evidence brought on record. As such, there is no scope of
reduction of the sentence imposed upon the Applicant by the
learned Trial Court.

10. Further urging that the evidence against the Applicant is
different from the evidence available in the case of original
accused Nos.2 and 3, Mr. Kulkarni has argued that the gravity of
offence and the circumstances under which, the offence has been
committed and the role played by the Applicant as well as the
desirability of releasing the convict on bail must be considered by
the court objectively while granting the bail prayer. Contending
that the Applicant stands on a different footing as compared to the
original accused Nos.2 and 3, who are out on bail, he submits that
the principle of parity would not apply in the present case. In
support of his above arguments, Mr. Kulkarni has placed reliance
on the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Hansaben Mansukhbahi Sangani Vs. Mahmad Shakil Gular Rasel 1.

11. We have considered the submissions made of the bar as well
as the materials available on record.

1 2024 SCC 4594

Page 4 of 7
th
14 August, 2025.

::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:58:12 :::
907 IA 4576-23 IN APEAL 410-22-CR.DOC

12. There is no wrangle at the bar that the original accused
Nos.2 and 3, who had also been convicted by the common
judgment dated 23rd December, 2021 had also been charged for
committing the offence of murder of the deceased. The learned
Trial Court has held them guilty for sharing the common
intent/object to cause death to the deceased.

13. Our attention has also been invited to the fact that out of the
six accused persons, one had been found to be a juvenile in conflict
with and he has been sent to the juvenile home, whereas one of
the co-accused has been acquitted on the basis of the same
evidence available on record.

14. We also find from the material on record that according to
the eye witnesses, the Applicant had brought a sword from his
house and struck the deceased on his chest. However, the medical
evidence clearly shows that the death of the deceased was on
account of the injury sustained on the thigh. As per the eye-
witness, it was the original accused No.4 who had struck the
deceased on the thigh with a "gupti".

15. We have also taken note of the fact that the Applicant is
pursuing higher studies as a law student and unless he is released
on bail, it would not be possible for him to attend classes on
regular basis which is compulsory as per new guidelines of the Bar
Council of India.

Page 5 of 7
th
14 August, 2025.

::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:58:12 :::
907 IA 4576-23 IN APEAL 410-22-CR.DOC

16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the evidence available on record, we are of the view that
there is some doubt as to whether, the Applicant had indeed
caused death to the deceased with the intention to commit his
murder. Moreover, we have noted that the Applicant has suffered
jail incarceration for nearly ten years. The original accused Nos. 2
and 3 have already been released on bail. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that both on facts as well as on the principle of parity, the
Applicant has made out a good case for his release on bail.

17. We, accordingly, pass the following order:-

ORDER

i. The Applicant, viz., Sohail Salim Ansari shall be released on bail in connection with Sessions Case No.44 of 2015 arising out of C.R.No.497 of 2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai on furnishing PR Bond of sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

ii. The Applicant shall maintain good behaviour and shall not indulge in any anti social activity while on bail.

iii. The Applicant shall appear before the concerned Police Station on the first Saturday of

th 14 August, 2025.

907 IA 4576-23 IN APEAL 410-22-CR.DOC

every month between 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. until such time, the pending appeal is finally disposed of.

iv. The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mumbai district without the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

v. The Applicant shall ensure due representation before this Court through his engaged counsel as and when the connected appeal is taken up for final hearing.

17. Before parting with the records, we make it clear that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and have been made purely for the purpose of disposing of the bail application.

18. Violation of any of the above mentioned conditions shall be viewed seriously.

19. Interim Application No.4576 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {

th 14 August, 2025.