[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rama @ Ramu Devji Shedad vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 January, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:4101-DB
bipin prithiani
1
8-ia-998.25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 998 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1182 OF 2022
Rama @ Ramu Devji Shedad ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
******
Mr. Anush Shetty i/by Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry for the Applicant.
Dr. Dhanalakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for Respondent-State.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 27th JANUARY 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the applicant (original accused)
and the learned APP for the State.
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail as he has
remained incarcerated for a period of about 6 years and 9 months,
pending trial and also pending the accompanying appeal.
3. The applicant by way of the accompanying appeal has
challenged judgment and order dated 2nd May 2022 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Thane (hereinafter referred to
as 'trial Court' for short) in Sessions Case No. 335 of 2019. The
trial Court has convicted the applicant for offence under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to
suffer imprisonment for life, as also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal
bipin prithiani
8-ia-998.25.doc
of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution itself would show
that the applicant has made out a strong prima facie case in his
favour to assert that the trial Court committed an error in
convicting him for the said offence. It is submitted that the
evidence of the prosecution falls short of proving the case against
the applicant beyond reasonable doubt. In that context, learned
counsel for the applicant invited attention of this Court to
evidence of the prosecution witness, including PW1, PW4, PW10,
PW11 and PW13 along with other documents on record, to
contend that even if such evidence is to be taken into
consideration, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and that the trial Court committed an error in
accepting the case of the prosecution.
5. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence in the present
case and the theory of extra-judicial confession is hit by a number
of deficiencies, including absence of Call Detail Records (CDRs),
failure of seizure of mobile phones of the applicant as well as
PW10 i.e. a witness for the extra-judicial confession. It is
submitted that the recoveries were after more than a month of the
incident and that the CA reports also do not support the case of
the prosecution. It is emphasized that the only person, who
allegedly saw the accused commit the act i.e. one Laxman, was
never examined by the prosecution because he died by the time
the trial was underway. On this basis, it was submitted that this
Court may consider allowing the application.
bipin prithiani
8-ia-998.25.doc
6. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposed the
contentions raised on behalf of the applicant. It was submitted that
the contentions sought to be raised at this stage, deserve
consideration at the stage of final hearing and that the trial Court
in the present case, considered all the circumstances
comprehensively to return findings against the applicant. It was
submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses indeed
proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It
was submitted that even though the aforesaid Laxman died before
he could be examined during the course of trial, his statement
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) was on record. It was submitted that, in any case, there
was sufficient material to show that the applicant had a series of
quarrels with the deceased. Registration of a report of non-
cognizable offence, one day prior to the incident, clearly shows the
backdrop in which the incident took place that led to prosecution
of the applicant. It was submitted that the aforesaid material
coupled with the extra-judicial confession do make out a strong
case against the applicant and therefore, this Court may not grant
bail to the applicant.
7. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of the
evidence of the prosecution. We have perused the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, only with a view to arrive at a conclusion as
to whether a prima facie case is made out by the applicant for
being released on bail.
bipin prithiani
8-ia-998.25.doc
8. We find that the trial Court, while holding against the
applicant, placed much emphasis on the extra-judicial confession
of the accused for which PW10 is a crucial witness. The other
circumstances like recovery of weapon, recovery of clothes and
medical evidence were also taken into consideration by the trial
Court.
9. Upon perusal of the evidence of PW1, we find that while he
has asserted that the applicant entered into the hall of the house
where the incident took place, through the window, at about 3:00
a.m. on the date of the incident and assaulted the victim by means
of knife, giving an impression as if he was an eye-witness to the
incident. But, his statement that led to registration of the FIR,
shows that the incident was narrated to him by the said Laxman. It
is the statement of the PW1 himself that after Laxman saw the
incident, he and his wife got up from sleep and when they went to
the hall, they found the victim was lying in a pool of blood. We
find that the applicant has made out a prima facie case to contend
that the said witness PW1 can be said to be a witness of hearsay
evidence and that he cannot be said to be a direct eye-witness to
the incident in question.
10. PW4 is the wife of the said Laxman and she has deposed on
the basis of the narration of the incident by the said Laxman and
therefore, her evidence can prima facie be also categorized as
hearsay evidence. The aforesaid Laxman could not be examined as
he died before the trial was conducted. Thus, we find that there is
bipin prithiani
8-ia-998.25.doc
absence of a direct eye-witness to the incident in question.
11. In such a situation, the main incriminating circumstance
appears to be the extra-judicial confession given by the applicant
to PW10. Even as per the evidence of the said witness PW10, such
an extra-judicial confession was given on 11 th April 2019, while
the incident is said to have taken place on 28 th March 2019. The
said witness has deposed that Police had called him on the next
date of the conversation and that thereafter, he never visited the
police station. This is contradicted by the evidence of PW13 i.e.
Investigating Officer, who says that the statement of PW10 was
recorded on 1st May 2019.
12. Apart from this, although the memory card purportedly
containing the recording of the conversation between the accused
and PW10 was recovered, the mobile phones of both the applicant
and PW10 were never seized during the course of investigation.
CDRs were also not taken, thereby showing absence of evidence
to confirm that the purported extra-judicial confession was in a
conversation dated 11th April 2019, which was recorded by PW10.
In cross-examination, the said witness even conceded that he had
no knowledge regarding mobile phone operation. Absence of
seizure of the mobile phone demonstrates lack of evidence to show
as to whether the mobile phone actually had a facility of recording
or not.
13. Apart from this, the voice sample of the applicant was taken,
while that of PW10 was never taken during the course of
bipin prithiani
8-ia-998.25.doc
investigation. These factors prima facie create doubt about the
veracity of the extra-judicial confession, which appears to be the
most crucial part of the evidence taken into consideration by the
trial Court, while holding against the applicant.
14. The evidence pertaining to recoveries can be taken into
consideration, but the result of CA analysis being inconclusive
shows a lack of link between the recoveries and the accused having
actually used the weapon of assault when the incident took place.
15. Considering the aforesaid material, we have come to a
conclusion that the applicant has made out a prima facie case in
his favour, while asserting that the conclusions rendered by the
trial Court against him, can be said to be erroneous.
16. It is also a matter of record that the applicant has already
suffered incarceration of about 6 years and 9 months and this is
also a factor to be taken into consideration, while disposing of the
present application.
17. Some apprehension was expressed by the learned APP that
granting bail to the applicant may lead to a situation where he will
visit the very village of which the witnesses are residents and this
may lead to untoward incidents. We are of the opinion that
appropriate conditions can be imposed to address the said
apprehension.
18. In view of the above, the application is allowed in the
following terms :
bipin prithiani
8-ia-998.25.doc
(a) The applicant shall be released on bail in connection
with Sessions Case No. 335 of 2019, arising out of C.R.
No. 38 of 2019, on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/-
and one or two sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.
(b) During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant shall
not enter the jurisdiction of Vikramgad Police Station,
Dist. Palghar.
(c) The applicant shall report to Wada Police Station, Dist.
Palghar, during the pendency of the appeal, on first
Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00
noon.
(d) The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall place
on record of the trial Court the details of his Contact
Number and residential address with updates in case of
any change.
19. Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaid
conditions, the bail granted to the applicant shall be liable to be
cancelled. It is also clarified that the observations made in this
order are limited to the disposal of the present application.
20. The application is disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
