High Court
Legal Reasoning
-1- BA.209.2025 & BA.177.2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 209 OF 2025Shaikh Moin Shaikh Majid, Age : 26 years, Occu. : Labour, R/o. Adawad, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon.… Applicant(Ori. Accused No.1)Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 2.Inspector of Police, Adawad Police Station, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.… Respondents.WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2025Irfan Abdul Tadvi, Age : 32 years, Occu. : Labour, R/o. Adavad, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon.… ApplicantVersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through Police Inspector, Police Station Adavad, Dist. Jalgaon.… Respondent……Mr. Chetan B. Chaudhari, Advocate for Applicant in BA/209/2025Mr. S. S. Kulkarni h/f. Mr. B. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant in BA/177/2025Mr. V. M. Jaware, APP for Respondent - State...…CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON : 3rd MARCH, 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 5th MARCH, 2025 -2- BA.209.2025 & BA.177.2025ORDER : 1.Both above applications are for grant of regular bail onaccount of arrest of applicants in Crime No.0157 of 2024registered at Adawad Police Station, District Jalgaon for offencepunishable under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya NyayaSanhita.2. Learned counsel for applicant, who has moved BailApplication No.177 of 2024, point out that, applicant is arrested on05.09.2024 regarding occurrence which had allegedly taken placeon 31.08.2024, but FIR is lodged on 01.09.2024. He emphasizedthat, in fact, FIR is against unknown person. That, taking throughthe FIR, it is pointed out that, prima facie, allegations are ofassaulting informant by unknown person for unknown reason. Hepointed out that, deceased was seen going in the company of oneSubhash Barela. Present applicants are subsequently involved onsome hearsay information. Learned counsel took this courtthrough the statement of one Iqbal Ramzan Tadvi for namingpresent applicants. However, it is pointed out that, his statement isnot credible as in spite of allegedly seeing occurrence, hisstatement is recorded on 05.09.2024. Even otherwise allegationsare of hitting stick and allegation of strangulation are against nonapplicant Kalindar. Now, investigation is already over. Charge -3- BA.209.2025 & BA.177.2025sheet is already filed in November 2024. According to learnedcounsel, there are no immediate prospects of matter going for trialor it further getting concluded. For above reasons he seeks grant ofbail. 3.Learned counsel for applicant, who has moved BailApplication No.209 of 2025, also submitted that, FIR is againstunknown person. That, there is confusion as to at what time thedeceased actually went out of the house and was seen in thecompany of others including present applicants. That, evenotherwise geneal allegations are levelled about using stick andmain allegations of strangulation are against Kalindar. It is furtherpointed out that, cause of death is not established in spite of postmortem. Even according to him, now charge-sheet having beingfiled in November 2024 itself and there are no immediateprospects of matter going for trial, he also seeks grant of bail onsuitable condition deemed fit by this court. 4.Learned APP strongly opposed on the ground thatoffence of murder is committed. That, there is direct eye witnessaccount. He has defined roles played by both applicants along withother co-accused. That, there is joint assault on petty count.Deceased suffered multiple injuries, fracture and was strangulated.In all four to five persons are named. Therefore, with such serious -4- BA.209.2025 & BA.177.2025allegations, he opposes the grant of bail.5.Perused the papers. FIR is by one Ishwar JagdishSolanki and substance of the FIR is that, his deceased fatherJagdish had met with an accident and as such, he did not work, butwas consuming liquor sometimes. He further reported that, on31.08.2024, around 10:00 p.m., he saw his father consumingliquor with Subhash Tersing Barela. While informant was takingdinner, he learnt from his wife that, at around 10:00 a.m., hisfather Jagdish left on motorcycle for repair of mobile and cameback at 6:30 p.m., borrowed Rs.500/- from his mother and wentwalking and again returned with Subhash Barela on motorcycle ataround 09:30 p.m. and since then they both are consuming liquor.Informant claims that, he also saw both of them i.e. his father andSubhash Barela going on motorcycle at 10:15 p.m. and thereafterhe slept. He claims that, on next day i.e. on 01.09.2024, he wokeup and did not find his father as well as their motorcycle. He wentto work at field and at around 11:00 a.m., he claims to havereceived phone call from one Vitthal Barela about his father lyingdead near a Darga. On going there, he saw injuries on the person ofhis father and hence he lodged report about murder of his father byunknown person for unknown reason by unknown weapon. Thus,FIR is registered against unknown persons on 01.09.2024. Both
Legal Reasoning
-5- BA.209.2025 & BA.177.2025present applicants are shown to be arrested on 06.09.2024 i.e.after six days of occurrence. P.M. shows that viscera is preservedand opinion about cause of death is reserved. Learned APP haspointed out that in column no.17 of P.M. report, there is ligaturemarks. 6.On visiting statement of Iqbal Ramzan Tadvi, which isapparently relied by both, learned counsel for applicants as well aslearned APP, it is emerging that, this witness has given statementon 05.09.2024 regarding occurrence allegedly seen by him on31.08.2024. He claims that, around 7:00 p.m. of 31.08.2024 whilehe was going for answering call of nature, he met Shahruk Tadvi,Kalidar Tadvi and they all three together went to answer call ofnature. He claims that, while they were chatting, Irfan Tadvi andMoin Shaikh came and Moin Shaikh went to purchase bear andthereafter Irfan Tadvi consumed bear, whereas, this witness,Shahrukh Tadvi, Kalindar Tadvi and Moin Shaikh smoked Chilamand around 9:00 p.m., they saw one person proceeding onmotorcycle and was allegedly questioned. On some exchange ofwords, it is alleged that, initially Irfan went towards motorcycle,kicked it, as a result of which said person fell down. Thereafter,Shahrukh, Moin and Kalindar also joined and they all went andtook that man towards main gate and therefore this witness -6- BA.209.2025 & BA.177.2025followed them and claims to have seen Irfan (i.e. applicant in B.A.No.177 of 2025) and Shahrukh Tadvi, Kalindar Tadvi and MoinShaikh (applicant in B.A. No.209 of 2025) assaulting that man onhead, back and abdomen by means of stick and it is alleged that,Kalindar strangulated that man by means of rope. He furtherstated that, as this person witnessed the occurrence, he was alsothreatened with dire consequences and therefore he did not reportthe occurrence on that date. On 05.09.2024, he was called at PoliceStation and therefore he gave above statement.7.Therefore, apparently both applicants are named byabove witness. Their roles are also defined. Column no.17 of postmortem of deceased shows ligature marks coupled with injuries,abrasions, fracture and crush injuries. Therefore, barely fewmonths have lapsed since arrest of the applicants. Cause of death isyet to be established. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grantbail with such nature of allegations.8.Both application stand rejected accordingly. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale