Bombay High Court
Ajmul Salimuddin Salmani @ Sanjay vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2025:BHC-AS:37055-DB
1/5 16-IA-2347-25-IN-APEAL-617-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2347 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.617 OF 2025
Ajmul Salimuddin Salmani @ Sanjay .... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.......
• Ms. NSK Ayubi, Advocate for Applicant.
• Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATE : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2025
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
the Appeal preferred by the Applicant. The Applicant was the
sole accused. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, vide his Judgment
and Order dated 21/10/2024 passed in Sessions Case
No.353/2022 u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Digitally
signed by
MANUSHREE
MANUSHREE NESARIKAR
NESARIKAR Date:
2025.09.04
12:55:14
+0530
2. The Applicant was convicted for commission of the
Nesarikar
2/5 16-IA-2347-25-IN-APEAL-617-25.odt
offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer
simple imprisonment for three months.
3. Heard Ms. NSK Ayubi, learned counsel for the Applicant
and Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, learned APP for the State.
4. The incident is dated 17/12/2021. The prosecution
case is that the Applicant was having grudge against one Shabbir
because of some previous quarrel. He had threatened Shabbir
that he would cause harm to Shabbir or his employees. In the
early hours of 17/12/2021, he gave blow with a big stone on the
head of one Afzal causing serious head injury. Afzal's uncle was
sleeping next to him and he woke up and saw the Applicant
running away from the spot. He informed others. The injured
Afzal was taken to hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries on
22/12/2021. The medical certificate issued by J.J. Group of
Hospitals shows that that the deceased Afzal had suffered 8
injuries. There was lacerated wound on the side of the face. It
was described as grievous injury and there were incised wounds
3/5 16-IA-2347-25-IN-APEAL-617-25.odt
on the forehead. There was injury on the side of left lower lip. It
was also described as grievous injury. Besides that, there were
other simple injuries. The post-mortem notes show certain other
surgical wounds as well. The cause of death is 'Death due to
head injury(Unnatural)'.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
prosecution case has not established the motive. There is no
eyewitness to the incident. The uncle of the deceased who was
sleeping next to him had not actually seen the incident. The
CCTV footage was inconclusive.
6. Learned APP on the other hand relied on the evidence
of uncle of the deceased and also on the evidence of CCTV
footage.
7. We have considered these submissions. We have
perused the evidence annexed to this application with the help
of both the learned counsel.
8. P.W.3 Shabir Khan was the employer of the deceased
4/5 16-IA-2347-25-IN-APEAL-617-25.odt
Afzal. There was some history between him and the Applicant.
On 16/12/2021, the Applicant had threatened this witness. He
had abused his colleagues as well. Therefore, P.W.3 Shabir's wife
had informed the police. The police had taken the Applicant to
the police station. Because of which, he had got angry. This
evidence provides motive for the murder. It indicates the past
threats issued by him.
9. The eyewitness P.W.7 Subrathi Fatte Mohd. Shah, was
uncle of the deceased who was sleeping with the deceased Afzal
and one Babu on the footpath. In the night at about 03.30 a.m.
to 4.00 a.m., he woke up. According to him the Applicant had
assaulted the deceased with the stone on his head. He saw the
Applicant running away from the spot. P.W.7 then informed
others and Afzal was taken to the hospital. This is another
strong incriminating evidence against the Applicant. The third
main evidence against him is that of the CCTV footage. The
CCTV camera was installed in a shop opposite to the spot of
incident.
5/5 16-IA-2347-25-IN-APEAL-617-25.odt
10. P.W.6 Arif Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh had installed that CCTV
system. He provided certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence
Act to prove that CCTV footage.
11. P.W.5 Fahad Aslam Khan was the shop owner. He was
shown the CCTV footage. He described the CCTV footage. He
described that the CCTV footage showed the Applicant throwing
stone on the deceased Afzal. The CCTV footage also showed the
Applicant wandering here and there and picking up a stone.
P.W.5 identified the Applicant as the accused in that case.
12. Thus, there is strong evidence against the Applicant in
the form of eyewitness and CCTV footage.
13. Considering this evidence, no case for grant of bail is
made out.
14. The application is accordingly disposed of.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
