Supreme Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADBAIL APPLICATION NO. 87 OF 2026ALTAF SHABBIR SHAIKHVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Ms. Susmita V Dound APP for Respondents No.1 and 2: Mr. D. B. BhangeAdvocate for Intervenor/Assist to PP : Mr. S. E. Shekade... CORAM: SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.DATE: 23-02-2026PER COURT:-1.The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with CrimeNo.0689 of 2025 dated 20.12.2025 registered with Karjat PoliceStation, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable underSections 105, 125(A), 125(B), 281, 3(5) of the Bhartiya NyayaSanhita, 2023 and Sections 134(A), 134(B), 177, 180, 181, 184, 3and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the said crime, theapplicant was arrested on 20.12.2025. Upon completion of theinvestigation, the chargesheet is filed.2.The prosecution case is that On 19/12/2025, atapproximately 02:15 PM, Police Constable Sudam Pokale wasperforming his patrolling duties at Mahatma Phule Chowk inRashin. As he was crossing the road, a Mahindra Pickup vehicle 2 44-BA-87-26.odt(Registration No. MH-12 YB-9032), driven by the applicant wasoperated in a rash and negligent manner. Without sounding thehorn or providing any indication, the applicant suddenly reversedthe vehicle, striking Constable Pokale with significant force. Theimpact caused severe and grievous injuries, and Constable Pokaletragically succumbed to them on the spot. At the time of theincident, one Firoj Siraj Shaikh was present in the vehicle as thecleaner. Following the collision, both the driver and the cleaner fledthe scene in the vehicle without reporting the matter to theauthorities. Initially, Accidental Death Register (ADR) No. 88 of2025 was lodged at the Karjat Police Station. However, after thepreliminary investigation, a First Information Report (FIR) waslodged against the driver and the cleaner. 3.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that theapplicant has been implicated in the crime, which is purely aninstance of death by negligence rather than any intentionalcriminal act. The charges of culpable homicide not amounting tomurder are legally unsustainable as there existed no commonintention, motive, or knowledge on the part of the applicant thatthe act was likely to cause death. The present FIR appears to havebeen escalated solely due to the fact that the deceased was apolice official, rather than on the merits of the incident. Further, the applicant was a documented driver holding a valid LMV (Non-Transport) license on the date of the accident. As there is no 3 44-BA-87-26.odtrecovery pending and the investigation is based on documentaryevidence, custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified. The applicant is a 19-year-old student with clean antecedents andwith no criminal record; he is preparing for his 12th standardexaminations scheduled for next month. The continuedincarceration of the applicant would cause irreparable loss to theacademic career and future prospects. Hence, prayed to allow theapplication. 4.Learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for intervenor, haveopposed the application and contending that on the basis of theevidence collected thus far, a prima facie case under Section 105of the BNS, 2023, is clearly established against the applicant. Theprosecution submits that the applicant’s rash and negligent drivingresulted in the untimely death of a young police officer who wasperforming his lawful duties at the time of the incident. Further, itis contended that the applicant’s conduct following the accident ishighly incriminating; rather than reporting the matter to the police, the applicant fled the scene, thereby attempting to evade legalaccountability. It is expressed strong apprehension that if theapplicant is released on bail, he may abscond or tamper with theevidence. Hence, prayed to reject the application.5.Upon considering the submissions of both sides and perusalof the record, including the chargesheet, prima facie, indicates 4 44-BA-87-26.odtthat the gravity of the victim’s death, the material on record primafacie indicates the applicant was a licensed driver and the incidentoccurred in the course of vehicular movement in the midnight.In the absence of a clear motive or "common intention," theapplicability of Section 105 is a matter of trial.6.The investigation is complete for all intent and purpose, resultantly, the chargesheet is filed. Having regard to the numberwitnesses which the prosecution proposes to examine, it is veryunlikely that the trial can be commenced and concluded within areasonable period. As such, further incarceration of the applicantas an under-trial prisoner, in the circumstances of the case, doesnot seem to be either warranted or justifiable. So far asapprehension expressed by learned APP is concerned, it can beadequately taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. I am, therefore, persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of applicant.7.Hence, the order:-ORDER (i) The bail application is allowed.(ii) Applicant, Altaf Shabbir Shaikh, be released on bail, uponfurnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.FiftyThousand) with one or two local solvent sureties, in the likeamount, in connection with Crime No.0689 of 2025 dated20.12.2025 registered with Karjat Police Station, District 5 44-BA-87-26.odtAhilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections105, 125(A), 125(B), 281, 3(5) of the Bhartiya NyayaSanhita, 2023 and Sections 134(A), 134(B), 177, 180, 181,184, 3 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on thefollowing conditions :-(a)The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecutionwitnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner.(b)The applicant shall attend the trial on each and everydate unless exempted by the trial Court and shall notleave the area of jurisdiction of the concerned PoliceStation till conclusion of the trial.(c) The applicant shall submit Aadhar and Pan Cards to theInvestigating Officer and detailed address and phonenumbers and two of the near relatives.(d)In case of breach of any of the conditions by theapplicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move thisCourt seeking cancellation of bail.(iii) Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are to the extent of this application and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same. [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGErrd