[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mohammed Fayaaz Shikilkar S/O Abdul ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 6 May, 2026
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2026:BHC-AS:21487-DB
sns 1-cr.apeal-912-2024-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.912 OF 2024
Mohammed Fayaaz Shikilkar ]
S/o Abdul Rehman Shikilkar ]
Indian inhabitant, Adult, Male ]
Age: 35 years, Occ. Business-Butcher ]
Permanent resident of 47/1, ]
Gulzar Galli, Navpada, Bandra (E), ]
Mumbai 400 051. ]
(Present lodged at Arthur Road ]
Central Prison) ] ... Appellant
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
2. NIA, Mumbai ]
in R.C. No.01/2023/NIA/MUM ] ... Respondents
______________________________________
Ms. Nazneen Khatri a/w. Adv. Khatri Mohamed Adil, Adv. Sagar Samel for
the Appellant.
Smt. Prajakta P. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Chintan Shah, Special P.P. for the Respondent-NIA.
Ms. Shipra Singh, PI, NIA, Mumbai, present.
Mr. Akhilesh Singh, PI, NIA, Mumbai, present.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24th March, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 6th May, 2026.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) By the present Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.05.06
15:22:43
+0530
sns 1-cr.apeal-912-2024-J
Investigation Agency Act ('NIA Act'), the Appellant (original Accused No.3)
seeks enlargement on bail in R.C. No.01/2023/NIA/Mum registered at the
instance of N.I.A. Police Station, Mumbai arising out of Special Case No.329
of 2023, on such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and
proper. The learned Judge of the Special Court has rejected his Application
for bail filed below the Exhibit No.21 by its Order dated 3rd February 2024.
2) The prosecution case in brief is that, on 17 th November 2021,
the Naupada Police Station, Thane City, Maharashtra, acting on a secret
input, accosted one Riyaz Abdul Rahiman Shikilkar (A-1) from Thane and
recovered 149 High Quality Indian Currency Notes of Rs.2,000/-
denomination, having face value of Rs.2,98,000/- from his physical
possession. At his instance, the accused Nasir Usmangani Choudhari (A-2)
came to be arrested on 26th November, 2021 from whom one such note of
Rs.2,000/- denomination was recovered.
2.1) The Naupada Police Station filed a charge-sheet on 6 th April
2022 vide Special Court Case No.333 of 2022 and charge-sheeted Riyaz
Shikilkar (A-1), Nasir Choudhari (A-2) and showed an unidentified
individual as wanted. Pursuant to the directions of the Central Government,
the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation of the
case on 7th February 2023 and re-numbered it as Case No.RC
01/2023/NIA/MUM and commenced further investigation.
2.2) On 10th May 2023, the NIA conducted a search at the residence
sns 1-cr.apeal-912-2024-J
of Riyaz Shikilkar (A-1) and Appellant (A-3), who is his brother and
allegedly seized certain illegal arms hidden in a dubious manner. On 12 th
May 2023, after being called for investigation the Appellant came to be
arrested by the NIA. His application for bail was rejected by the Special
Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay on 3 rd February 2024.
Subsequently, on 10th June 2024, the prosecution filed an Application for
leading additional evidence against the accused. In these circumstances, the
present Appeal came to be filed.
3) Ms. Nazneen Khatri, learned Advocate for the Appellant,
submits that the Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is
further submitted that the Appellant and A-1 (Riyaz) are brothers residing
together, and the financial transactions between them are wholly natural
and attributable to household expenses. No guilt, knowledge of
counterfeiting a currency note or intention or the ability or the material to
attempt counterfeiting is alleged for application of provisions of Section 489
(A) of the IPC. There are no ingredients for a case under section 120 (B) of
the IPC placed on record against the Appellant.
3.1) She submits that, neither the charge-sheet nor supplementary
charge-sheet reveal that, the international number +60146950130 belong
to the wanted accused Javed Patel @ Javed Chikna. It is only an
assumption. His family members are working in the Gulf. The reliance on
an online source to trace the IP address is stated to be unreliable and
sns 1-cr.apeal-912-2024-J
unsupported by any verified or admissible material. the statement of Firoz
Chamda relied upon by the prosecution reveals nothing against the accused
Nos.1 and 2 or the Appellant. The alleged recovery of arms was in the
absence of any family members. The reliance on photographs of arms or
sword allegedly found in the mobile phone of A-1 is misplaced, as no such
articles were recovered during the search. The reliance placed on the
American website www.whatismyipaddress.com to allege communication
made from Pakistan is wholly unreliable. That no offence under Section 18
of the UAP Act is made out and, in the absence thereof, the invocation of
Section 120B of the IPC or Section 34 is unsustainable. It is also pointed out
that Sections 489A, 489B, and 489C of the IPC have not been applied to the
Appellant.
3.2) She submitted that, the accused will not attempt any unlawful
activity if enlarged, that he shall attend all hearings before the Court and is
also ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court for being
released on bail. In view of the above, the learned Advocate Appellant
submits that, the Appeal be allowed.
4) We have heard the Advocate for the Appellant as well as the
Special PP for the Respondent. We have also perused the record carefully.
5) An examination of the record indicates that the Appellant is
not innocent. There is adequate evidence which discloses criminal intent to
commit an offence. If as contended by Ms. Khatri, the Appellant and A-1
sns 1-cr.apeal-912-2024-J
(Riyaz) are brothers residing together, we find no reason to transfer such a
huge amount of ₹ 50,000/- and attribute it household expenses. The
explanation that the transfer of funds between the two brothers was for
household expenses is illusory and does not inspire confidence. If, as
claimed, they were residing together, there would be no occasion for such
transfers. If so, the Bank statements negate such theory as it does not
indicate any such other financial transactions regularly made between the
Appellant and the alleged co-accused. The explanation for transfer
therefore does not stand to reason.
6) The absence of recovery of high-value or suspicious currency
from the present accused does not, by itself, exonerate him. The 'SMS'
relied upon by the prosecution requesting uncle to 'pick up' may well
explain the absence of such recovery. Though the bank statement does not
reflect any direct receipt of funds from a wanted accused, it does indicate
receipt from his brother, who is linked to such accused. It certainly gives
rise to suspicion and lends support to the prosecution's case that there is
nexus between the Appellant and the alleged offences.
7) If the two brothers were residing together as contended it is
impossible to believe that the Appellant had no knowledge of, or
involvement in, any unlawful activity. This narrative could have been
acceptable, if they were living separately as contented by the prosecution.
8) The prosecution has provided cogent material on record to
sns 1-cr.apeal-912-2024-J
substantiate its case that a separate premises was raided from where the
alleged arms were recovered. Conversely, there is no material to indicate
that the same premises was subjected to repeated raids. The contention of
the accused to the contrary is therefore misleading and cannot be accepted.
9) The reliance placed by the prosecution on international
numbers, the material from the internet for change of IP address, and the
photographs allegedly showing recovery of arms from a house, constitutes
prima facie material to charge the accused. Taken cumulatively, these
circumstances and material placed on record, support the prosecution's case
and lead us to believe that the accusations against the accused are prima
facie true. There is no reasonable explanation as to why a relative would
contact the Appellant through an unknown or untraceable number, when
identification was otherwise possible. The use of such a number raises a
legitimate suspicion that the Appellant was called by some accused or
wanted accused namely Javed Chikna who is an individual terrorist as per
Schedule IV of the UAP Act. Likewise, there is no satisfactory explanation
for the Appellant having searched for methods to change an IP address. It is
apparent that the Appellant was seeking to connect to the accused or
wanted accused without leaving any trail or being connected to them.
These factors, when read together, lend support to prosecution's case.
10) The recovery of arms from the house, as well as photographs
on the Appellant's mobile phone, also constitutes material linking him to
sns 1-cr.apeal-912-2024-J
the offence or accused or wanted accused. There is no plausible explanation
as to why the Appellant, who claims to be a businessman, would be in
possession of such photographs in his mobile phone. This circumstance too
further strengthens and leads us to believe the case of the prosecution at
this stage.
11) In our view, the prosecution has placed sufficient material to
prima facie establish offences under Section 18 of the UAP Act and under
Section 34 read with 120 (B) of the IPC. A perusal of the charge-sheet
indicates that, the evidence placed on record has ample probative value.
The prosecution has sufficiently established material demonstrating the
intention of the accused to commit any offence.
12) Having considered the material on record as well as the settled
law, we are of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error
either in law or on facts while passing the impugned Order dated 3 rd
February, 2024 below Exhibit-21 in Special Case No.329 of 2023.
13) There are no merits in the Appeal and it is accordingly
dismissed.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.).
