SHAIKHVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND GAUTAM MURLIDHAR HIWRALE...Shri Pradeep v. Ambade
Facts
*1* 42apeal582o25.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2025(For Regular Bail)KAISAR @ KAUSAR HAMID SHAIKHVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND GAUTAM MURLIDHAR HIWRALE...Shri Pradeep V. Ambade, Advocate for the Appellant.Shri G.O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1/ State.Ms. Kojagiri M. Salve, Advocate for Respondent No.2(appointed).... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. Reserved on : 15 September, 2025Pronounced on : 22 September, 2025ORDER :-1.By this appeal for regular bail, the appellant ispraying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.07.2025passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambad, DistrictJalna, on application below Exhibit-5 in Special CaseNo.24/2025, by which, the said application for regular bail isrejected.2.The above bail application was preferred in Crimebearing FIR No.111/2025 registered on 01.04.2025 withGhansawangi Police Station, District Jalna for the offences *2* 42apeal582o25.odtpunishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Codeand Sections 3(2) and 3(V) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,‘the Atrocities Act’). The FIR came to be lodged at the behest ofrespondent No.2/ informant (Gautam Murlidhar Hivrale).3.The informant Gautam Murlidhar Hivrale lodged thereport stating that the informant’s brother, namely, PramodMurlidhar Hivrale (deceased) who was working as driver onMahindra pick-up vehicle, was having illicit relationship withone Sumaiyya Yusuf Sayyed, who is wife of one Yusuf Sayyad(accused No.1). The appellant/ accused No.3 (Kaisar) is hermaternal uncle. On account of illicit relationship, there used to befrequent quarrels between the parties and on two to threeoccasions, accused No.1 (Yusuf), accused No.2 Yunus (brother ofaccused No.1) and accused No.3/ appellant Kaisar had assaultedPramod and also threatened to commit his murder. It is allegedthat though the informant and his relatives had tried to giveunderstanding to Pramod with regard to illicit relationship withSumaiyya, still he was not listening and continued with the saidrelationship. On 11.07.2023, Pramod left house on hismotorcycle at around 11:00 am, however, he did not return inevening. The informant tried to contact Pramod on his phone, *3* 42apeal582o25.odthowever, his phone was switched off. Therefore, on 13.07.2023,the informant’s mother (Prayagbai Hiwrale) lodged the missingreport bearing No.43/2023 with Harsul Pollice Station,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. During investigation of the saidmissing report, the Police obtained CDR report of the mobilephone being used by Pramod. In CDR report, they found thatthere was frequent conversation between Pramod and Sumaiyya.Therefore, the informant and his relatives went to house ofSumaiyya at village Bangaon Zopadpatti, Taluka Ambad, DistrictJalna, however, her house was locked. Therefore, they enquiredto neighbourers about whereabouts of Sumaiyya. When theyshowed photograph of Pramod to neighbourers, they recognizedhim and told that on 11.07.2023 he had come to meet Sumaiyyaand some dispute took place in her house. It was informed tothem that on the next day Sumaiyya went to the house of herrelative at Siddheshwar Pimpalgaon, Taluka Ambad. Therefore,the informant and his relatives went to village SiddheshwarPimpalgaon and met Sumaiyya as well as her husband Yusuf.Upon being asked about Pramod, they refused to discloseanything about him. Thereafter, they returned to ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar where they met uncle of Sumaiyya, namely,present appellant (Kaisar) and they found certain injury on hisleg. When they enquired about the said injury, he informed them *4* 42apeal582o25.odtthat during construction work, he suffered with an accident andtherefore, his leg got injured. When the informant disclosed allthese events to the Police, they called Yusuf and Sumaiyya toHarsul Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for enquiringabout Pramod, however, they did not disclose anything to thepolice. The informant also visited Police Stations at Ambad,Tirthapuri and Ghansawangi and made enquiries about Pramod.During such visit at Ghansawangi Police Station, the informantmet PSI Shri Dolare, who showed him photo of one dead personon his mobile. When they saw clothes and sandles of the deadperson, they confirmed that the said belongings are of thedeceased Pramod. The Police obtained DNA sample of themother of Pramod for further investigation. Thereafter, on07.05.2024, PSI Shri Kale informed on mobile to the informantthat within jurisdiction of Ghansawangi Police Station, onemotorcycle was found in one well, whose both number plates arebroken. The said PSI asked the informant to forward documentsof the said motorcycle on whatsapp. On the basis of chasis andengine numbers, it was confirmed that the said motorcycle wasbelonging to Pramod. On 08.02.2025, when PSI Shri Kaleenquired one Imran Karimoddin Shaikh and Siraj Gulab Shaikh,they informed him that on 12.07.2023 Sumaiyya had disclosedthem that her husband and brother-in-law have assaulted. It is *5* 42apeal582o25.odtalleged that when the informant made enquiry to Imran Shaikhabout his brother Pramod, he disclosed him that on 11.07.2023,Pramod had asked him to accompany to village of Sumaiyya onhis motorcycle as Pramod and Sumaiyya had decided to elopeand the said Imran was to return with motorcycle. However,Imran alleged to have refused to accompany Pramod. Thereafter,Sumaiyya had called Imran whether, Pramod had reached toChhatrapati Sambhajinagar as he had been assaulted by herhusband and brother-in-law. Therefore, the informant lodged FIRagainst accused persons and Crime No.111/2025 came to beregistered on 01.04.2025.4.Learned advocate for the appellant submits that thecase of prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidenceand there is no direct evidence available in the instant crime. Theappellant is arrested on 02.04.2025 and since then he has beenbehind bars. The charge-sheet is already filed on 26.06.2025 andno purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behindbars. The sessions trial will take too much time to commence andconclude. Until and unless the accused are convicted by theSessions Court, they have to be treated as innocents. Sincecustody of the appellant is not required, he be released on bail onany condition as this Court may deem fit and proper.
Legal Reasoning
*6* 42apeal582o25.odt5.Per contra, learned APP as well as learned advocatefor respondent No.2/ informant stated that the appellant isinvolved in heinous crime. The appellant along with others hadhatched conspiracy to eliminate the deceased on account of hisillicit relationship with Sumaiyya. Evidence collected by theInvestigating Officer goes to show prima facie involvement ofthe appellant in crime. If the appellant is released on bail, he maytamper with prosecution witnesses. Thus, both prayed forrejection of the appeal by refusing regular bail to the appellant.6.With assistance of learned advocates for respectiveparties, I have gone through the material available on record aswell as the charge-sheet made available by learned APP to me.Prima facie, the record shows that there is no direct evidenceavailable against the appellant. Only allegation against theappellant is that he was having leg injury. At this stage, inabsence of any incriminating material against the appellant, it isvery difficult to connect his leg injury with commission ofmurder of the deceased Pramod. Since the appellant has madeout prima facie case for grant of regular bail, I am inclined topass the following order:-ORDERa)The Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the *7* 42apeal582o25.odtimpugned order dated 08.07.2025 is quashed and set aside.b)In connection with Crime bearing FIR No.111/2025registered on 01.04.2025 with Ghansawangi Police Station,District Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections 302,201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2) and 3(V) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant shall be released on bail onhis furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty FiveThousand Only] with one solvent surety/ security in the likeamount.c)The appellant shall attend the concerned policestation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shallalso attend the sessions trial on the dates as may be fixed by theconcerned Sessions Court.d)The appellant shall not try to contact or pressurizethe witnesses or the informant, in any manner whatsoever.7.Since learned advocate for respondent No.2 isappointed through legal aid, her fees shall be calculated and paidto her as per rules by the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee.8.However, it is made clear that the observations made *8* 42apeal582o25.odtin this order are prima facie in nature for the purpose ofadjudication of this appeal. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )