Bombay High Court

Aslam Dastagir Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 19 August, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:22958


                                                1              20-appeal 549-2025.odt



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2025

                 Aslam Dastagir Shaikh                                     .. Appellant

                      Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra And Another                      .. Respondents

                 Mr. P. P. More, Advocate for the Appellant.
                 Smt. M. N. Ghanekar, APP for Respondent No. 1.
                 Smt. Priyanka Y. Sarnaik, Advocate h/f Mr. D. S. Patil, Advocate
                 for Respondent No. 2.

                                         CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.

                                         DATE       : 19th AUGUST, 2025.

                 PER COURT :-

                 .    The learned advocate Smt. Sarnaik holding for learned

advocate Mr. Patil states that, she has received instructions to

appear for respondent No. 2. She undertakes to file Vakalatnama

within two weeks from today.

2. This appeal is filed seeking regular bail in connection with

Crime No. 169/2025 registered with Gandhi Chowk Police

Station, Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 3(v),

3(2), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "Atrocities Act") and

1 of 8 2 20-appeal 549-2025.odt

Sections 352, 3(5), 115(2), 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

(for short "B.N.S."). This is second bail application in this Court.

Earlier bail application was rejected by this Court prior to filing of

the charge-sheet.

3. It is the case that, respondent No. 2 lodged an offence dated

23.04.2025 with the police station. It is alleged that, on

22.04.2025 he met with one Siddharth Suryawanshi, his friend at

Shivaji Maharaj Chowk, Latur. This accused with one Firoz Pathan

started fighting. The respondent No. 2 belongs to scheduled caste.

The accused/present appellant knows the caste of informant. He

came on a bullet by sounding horn and started abusing the

informant in the name of his caste. He said that the people from

caste of the informant have become arrogant. By saying this they

assaulted with fist and blows. This appellant took out a knife

named Khanjar and said that he would murder the informant and

his friend Siddharth. In that assault Siddharth received an injury

by knife near elbow. The appellant thereafter told Firoz Pathan to

take out Khanjar and told him to assault the informant. In this the

informant and Siddharth ran away from the spot and went to

Government hospital, Latur. The informant was admitted in

2 of 8 3 20-appeal 549-2025.odt

private hospital, Latur. His statement came to be recorded in the

hospital. On the basis of his statement, FIR came to be lodged.

4. The appellant came to be arrested immediately after lodging

of the FIR. The appellant thereafter filed bail application that

came to be rejected by the learned Trial court. The appellant,

therefore, approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.

371/2025. In the meantime, investigating officer filed charge-

sheet on 19.06.2025, the appellant therefore withdrew his appeal.

Now, the case is registered as Special Case No. 89/2025. In the

said case, the appellant filed application below Exh. 7 for bail. The

said application came to be rejected on 14.07.2025. Thus, the

appellant is before this Court.

5. The learned advocate for the appellant vehemently argued

that, no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short "I.P.C.") is made out. From the injuries it is clear that, at the

most the offence would be under Section 326 of the I.P.C. There is

no injury on the vital part of the informant and his friend. He

further submits that, the appellant is suffering from ailments. It is

necessary for him to get proper treatment and on this ground he

deserves a bail. He placed on record medical certificates. He

3 of 8 4 20-appeal 549-2025.odt

submits that, though there is allegation that the appellant is

involved in various cases, however, he is acquitted in two cases.

Those cases are of 2019 and 2021. Thereafter there is no

complaint except present complaint. He thus submits that,

criminal antecedents would not come in the way of the appellant.

For that purpose he relied upon the judgment in the case of

Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported

in 2020 (11) SCC 648.

6. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the appeal. She

submits that, there is panchanama. There is recovery of Khanjar

from the appellant. Panchanama of the spot was made wherein,

blood stains are found on the floor where the incident took place.

There is also CCTV footage collected from the spot wherein, the

incident is clearly seen where the appellant has assaulted the

informant. There are statements of eye witnesses clearly

implicating the appellant. They have clearly stated that the

present appellant used a knife and assaulted Siddharth. So far as

medical certificates are concerned, she submits that, though a

ground of medical ailment is taken, she has pointed out that the

ailment is not serious. There is no medical emergency as such.

4 of 8 5 20-appeal 549-2025.odt

She relied upon the certificate by the Government hospital which

only shows that there is optional surgery. She further pointed out

that, though the appellant was taken to the hospital, he on his

own took discharge against medical advice. She has invited

attention to the undertaking given to the hospital showing that

the patient has refused to use catheter. There is letter dated

30.04.2025 prepared by the doctor addressed to Chief Medical

Officer, Government Hospital, Latur showing that the patient has

taken discharge against medical advice. On 01.05.2025 the

accused specifically refused to go for Colonoscopy. She thus

submits that, when medical ground is taken, it was necessary for

him to take treatment from the doctor. On one hand he refused to

take treatment and on the other hand he wants bail on that

ground. His conduct clearly shows that there is no medical

emergency as such. Every care can be taken in the hospital. She

submits that, there are total seven cases against the appellant. In

the cases in which he is acquitted, his acquittal is because

witnesses became hostile. She thus submits that, acquittal is not

clean acquittal. Looking to the conduct the appellant does not

deserve bail.

5 of 8 6 20-appeal 549-2025.odt

7. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 also vehemently

opposes the appeal. She submits that, offence is clearly made out.

There is ample evidence collected by the investigating officer.

From the previous conduct of the appellant it is seen that, he is a

person with criminal background. She prays for dismissal of the

appeal.

8. The following is the status of the criminal cases against the

present appellant.

Crime No. Offences Status Cr. No. 740/2016 324, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC Awaiting summons Cr. No. 341/2018 324, 323, 504, 34 of IPC Acquittal Cr. No. 107/2019 392, 34 of IPC Acquittal Cr. No. 283/2019 307, 326, 323, 504, 506, 34 Bail granted of IPC Cr. No. 563/2021 307, 324, 323, 504, 34 of IPC Bail granted Cr. No. 279/2025 333, 118(1), 115(2), 352, Status not showing 351(2)(3), 323(5), 3(5) of BNS Cr. No. 323/2019 392, 504, 506, 34 of BNS Acquittal

9. This one factor is important factor to take into consideration

while deciding the case.

10. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari (supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that, merely because criminal antecedents are found

6 of 8 7 20-appeal 549-2025.odt

against the person that itself is no ground to refuse the prayer of

bail. In the said case, the High Court had exercised discretion by

granting bail to the accused person. The order of grant of bail was

challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is in that view the

Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, mere criminal antecedents is

no ground to refuse bail.

11. In the present case, though the acquittal is there in two

cases as pointed out by the learned A.P.P. that is not clean

acquittal. Two cases i.e. Crime Nos. 283/2019 and 563/2021

show that the appellant is involved in bodily offences. The

offence is under Section 307 of the I.P.C. In the present case, it is

sought to be canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant

that, looking to the injuries caused to the informant and

Siddharth, it shows that the offence at the most can be said to be

under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and not under Section 307 of the

I.P.C. However, this Court finds that even taken it as under

Section 326 of the I.P.C., looking to the criminal antecedents, it

would not be proper to release the appellant on bail. It is clearly

seen that, in two cases he is already granted bail and the present

FIR is registered when he is on bail in connection with two earlier

7 of 8 8 20-appeal 549-2025.odt

offences. For this reason this Court finds that, present case is not

a fit case in which appellant deserves a liberty.

12. So far as medical ground is concerned, this Court finds

substance in the argument of learned A.P.P. that on one hand the

appellant is seeking bail on medical ground whereas, on the other

hand he is refusing to take treatment from the hospital. The

ailment shown is abdomen pain, vomiting etc. which does not

appear to be serious. Had the injuries were serious, he would

have taken treatment. He has also not allowed the doctor to go

for a colonoscopy, which would help in diagnosing his ailment.

Thus, it is clear that he is avoiding a proper diagnosis. In such

circumstances, this Court finds that, even medical ground would

not help him.

13. Considering all above, this Court is not inclined to allow