[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mohd. Shafiq Mohd. Rafiq Khan @ Shafiq ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:11288-DB
904_IA4498&4606_25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4498 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.246 OF 2020
Mohd. Umar Yusuf Shaikh @ Salman ... Applicant
In the matter between:
Mohd. Umar Yusuf Shaikh @ Salman and another ... Appellants
Vs.
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.698 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.973 OF 2023
Mohd. Shafiq Mohd. Rafiq Khan @ Shafiq Patil ... Applicant
In the matter between:
Mohd. Shafiq Mohd. Rafiq Khan @ Shafiq Patil ... Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4606 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.973 OF 2023
---
Mr. Jagdish G. Shetty i/b. Mr. Ayub Shaikh for Applicant in IA/4498/2025.
Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal (appointed through Legal Aid) for Applicant in IA/4606/
2025 and IA/698/2023.
Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for Respondents - State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 07, 2026
P.C. :
. The applicants in these bail applications are original accused
Nos.1 and 6. They have been convicted along with two co-accused
904_IA4498&4606_25.doc
persons as per judgement and order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case
No.345 of 2014. The applicants were convicted and sentenced under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The learned counsel for the applicants are pursuing the prayers
made in these applications only on the ground of the period of
incarceration undergone by the applicants and the law laid down by the
Supreme Court while dealing with such applications for bail wherein the
applicants have remained behind bars for considerable periods of time.
3. It is submitted that co-accused No.2 was granted bail by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 31.07.2025 passed in
Interim Application No.2578 of 2024 (Jamir Mohammadulla Shafiulla
Sharif @ Jammo Vs. The State of Maharashtra).
4. The learned counsel for the applicants rely upon the judgement of
the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2023) 17 SCC 446, to contend that the Supreme Court in the
said judgement has categorized the accused / convicts into various
categories. The second category of cases pertains to persons who had
suffered incarceration for more than 10 years during trial and during
pendency of their appeals. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the
said judgement indicated that bail could be granted to such accused
persons unless there were any extenuating circumstances.
5. The learned APP submits that the present case concerns
conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The applicants are
found guilty of assaulting the victim in a violent manner and there is
sufficient material to indicate that the Sessions Court was justified in
convicting and sentencing the applicants. It is submitted that looking to
the gravity of the offence, this Court may not grant bail to the applicants.
904_IA4498&4606_25.doc
6. We find that in the present case, on specific queries put to the
learned counsel for the applicants, it is stated that the applicants do not
have any criminal antecedents. The said position could not be disputed
by the learned APP. It is in these circumstances that we have examined
applicability of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of
Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) to the facts of the
present case.
7. The record shows that Mohd. Umar Yusuf Shaikh @ Salman
(applicant in Interim Application No.4498 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal
No.246 of 2020) and Mohd. Shafiq Mohd. Rafiq Khan @ Shafiq Patil
(applicant in Interim Application No.698 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal
No.973 of 2023) were arrested on 22.01.2014 and 29.01.2014
respectively. This shows that the actual period of imprisonment
undergone by the said applicants is more than 12 years. Therefore, both
the applicants indeed fall in the second category of accused / convicts as
laid down by the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Saudan
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra). Paragraph 8 of the said
judgement specifically records that in such cases, where the accused /
convicts have undergone sentence of more than ten years at one go, bail
can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against
the said persons.
8. Although the learned APP has vehemently opposed the prayer in
these applications on the ground of gravity of the offence, we find that
since the applicants do not have any other criminal antecedents, the fact
that they have been convicted for murder under Section 302 of the IPC,
in itself, cannot be said to be an extenuating circumstance.
9. The Supreme Court has taken a view that such convicts whose
appeals are pending can be granted bail when they have undergone such
long periods of incarceration and they cannot be told by the High Court
904_IA4498&4606_25.doc
that since there is paucity of time and their appeals cannot be taken up
for final hearing, they should continue to suffer incarceration.
10. In such circumstances, we are inclined to grant relief to the
applicants. It is to be noted that when the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court granted bail to the co-accused No.2 by the aforesaid order dated
31.07.2025, apart from discussing merits of the application of the said
applicant, it was noted that the applicant therein had also remained
behind bars since the date of his arrest.
11. In view of the above, the applications are allowed in the following
terms:-
i) During the pendency of Criminal Appeal Nos.246 of 2020
and 973 of 2023, the applicants (original appellants in the
appeals) are directed to be released on bail on their
furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each, with
one or two sureties each in the like amount;
ii) During the bail period, the applicants shall be of good
behaviour and shall not commit any offence;
iii) Before their release from jail, the applicants shall give their
prospective residential addresses and the mobile and / or
landline numbers on which they or their close relative can be
contacted;
iv) The applicants shall not enter the jurisdiction of Meghwadi
Police Station during the pendency of the trial;
v) The applicants shall attend Sakinaka Police Station between
10:00 a.m. and 12 noon on the first Monday of every
calendar month, during the pendency of the appeals;
12. Needless to say, violation of any of the conditions will make the
904_IA4498&4606_25.doc
applicants liable for cancellation of bail.
13. Accordingly, Interim Application No.4606 of 2025 (through jail)
also stands disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
MINAL
SANDIP
Minal Parab
PARAB 17:39:13 +0530
