Bombay High Court
Amit Kishor Sinha @ L.P. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 August, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:35714
1-ba4079-2024.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.4079 OF 2024
Amit Kishor Sinha @ L.P. ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.419 OF 2025
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO.4079 OF 2024
Deepak Bhaskar Khambit ... Applicant
In the matter between
Amit Kishor Sinha @ L.P. ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
ATUL Mr. Sushan N. Mhatre for the applicant (appointed as
GANESH
KULKARNI Legal Aid).
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.08.19
13:34:58 +0530
Mrs. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for the respondent-State.
Mr. L.M. Shukla with Ms. Aarti R. Dharamsey for the
applicant-intervener in IA.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 19, 2025
P.C.:
1. By the present bail application filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“Cr.P.C.”), the applicant prays for grant of regular bail in
connection with Crime Register No.1050 of 2021 registered at
1
::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/08/2025 21:33:47 :::
1-ba4079-2024.doc
Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai. The offences alleged are
punishable under Sections 307, 324, 34, 120-B and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short), Sections 3, 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act, and Sections 37 and 135 of the Maharashtra Police
Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29th
September, 2021, the first informant, accompanied by his driver,
left his residence at about 9.20 a.m. in his motor car bearing
registration No. MH-04-EP-0450 to reach his office. After
completing his work, he left the office around 5.40 p.m. and
occupied the rear left seat of the car. At about 6.10 p.m., while
taking a U-turn under the bridge on the Western Express Highway,
the vehicle slowed down, and the informant leaned towards the
left. At that time, he noticed two unknown persons riding a
motorcycle, the pillion rider pointed a pistol at him and fired
towards the car, causing the left rear window glass to shatter. The
driver immediately attempted to take a U-turn, but the assailants
followed and again fired at the vehicle before fleeing towards
Dahisar. The car was then parked to safety. On examining himself,
the informant noticed injuries on the left side of his face and body.
A bullet/pellet was also found lying on the ground, which
confirmed that a firearm had been used against him.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that
the applicant was arrested on 4th October, 2021 and charges came
to be framed only on 1st March, 2025. The prosecution has cited
as many as 138 witnesses. However, it is his grievance that even
after framing of charges, the applicant was not produced before
2
::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/08/2025 21:33:47 :::
1-ba4079-2024.doc
the trial Court on several occasions. It is pointed out that there is
no recovery made from the applicant. The CCTV footage relied
upon by the prosecution pertains to a spot located nearly 3 to 4
kilometres away from the scene of offence, and not of the actual
place of incident. It is further urged that the person alleged to be
the main conspirator has already been discharged. Though the
applicant has eight prior criminal cases (antecedents) registered
against him, in most of them he has been acquitted. Even in the
case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act
(MCOCA), the applicant has been acquitted. In these
circumstances, learned counsel prays that the applicant deserves to
be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned APP representing the State, as
well as learned counsel for the victim, have opposed the
application. It is their submission that there is direct evidence
against the applicant not only from the victim himself but also
from as many as ten other eye-witnesses who have seen the
incident. It is stated that though initially the prosecution had cited
138 witnesses, the number of material witnesses can be brought
down to around 54, and examination of such witnesses would not
take an unduly long time. They submit that the applicant has eight
criminal antecedents, and if released on bail, there is a strong
likelihood that he would influence or threaten the witnesses. As
regards the discharge of the conspirator, it is explained that there
was no direct evidence against him, whereas in the present case,
the material on record directly points to the applicant. It is also
brought to the notice of this Court that in a bail application
3
::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/08/2025 21:33:47 :::
1-ba4079-2024.doc
preferred by a co-accused, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had stayed
the trial for more than a year, thereby delaying the progress of the
case. In the above background, it is strongly urged that considering
the nature of accusations and the antecedents of the applicant, no
indulgence be shown, and the present bail application be rejected.
5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
applicant, the learned APP for the State, and the learned Advocate
appearing for the victim. I have carefully perused the papers of
investigation and the material placed before this Court.
6. At the outset, it must be noted that the offences alleged
against the applicant are grave in nature. Section 307 of IPC,
which deals with attempt to murder, carries a severe punishment.
The allegations of use of firearms and attack in a public place
cannot be taken lightly. However, the principle governing the grant
of bail has been settled by the Supreme Court in a catena of
decisions. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1978 SC 429], Justice V.R. Krishna
Iyer observed that the basic rule is “bail, not jail”, except where
there are circumstances suggestive of the accused fleeing justice or
tampering with evidence or repeating offences.
7. The applicant has been in custody since 4th October, 2021.
Thus, he has already undergone incarceration for nearly three
years and ten months. Charges were framed only on 1st March,
2025. The prosecution initially cited 138 witnesses, though it is
now stated that material witnesses may be around 54. Even then,
considering the pace of trial and the number of witnesses, early
4
::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/08/2025 21:33:47 :::
1-ba4079-2024.doc
conclusion of trial appears unlikely. The prolonged pre-trial
detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution, and bail should not be denied
merely on the ground of seriousness of the allegations, when trial
is not likely to conclude early.
8. As regards the evidentiary aspect, no recovery has been
made from the applicant. The CCTV footage relied upon by the
prosecution does not relate to the place of the incident, but is from
a location 3 to 4 kilometres away. The victim and other witnesses
are yet to depose, and their testimony will be tested during trial.
At the stage of considering bail, the Court is not required to assess
the probative value of the evidence in detail.
9. The antecedents of the applicant have been pressed into
service by the prosecution. The record shows that the applicant has
eight prior cases against him. However, the learned counsel for the
applicant has rightly submitted that in some of those cases he has
been acquitted, including in a case under MCOCA. The presence of
antecedents by itself is not an absolute bar to bail, particularly
when they do not show a continuing pattern of similar offences.
The weight of antecedents has to be assessed in the light of their
outcome.
10. The apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant may
influence witnesses is not unfounded, but it can be safeguarded by
imposing strict conditions. The possibility of tampering with
witnesses is a relevant consideration, but cannot be a ground to
deny bail in perpetuity when adequate safeguards can be imposed.
5
::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/08/2025 21:33:47 :::
1-ba4079-2024.doc
11. On an overall conspectus of the matter, this Court is satisfied
that the applicant has undergone substantial incarceration, the
trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, and the evidence
against him is a matter to be established during trial. The balance
tilts in favour of granting bail, subject to stringent conditions to
ensure that the applicant does not misuse the liberty.
12. Hence, following order is passed:
i) The bail application is allowed;
ii) The applicant is directed to be released on regular bail
in connection with Crime Register No.1050 of 2021
registered with Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai for
offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 34, 120(B),
201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and
Section 3, 25, and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 37 and
135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, upon furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following
conditions:
(a) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence, or
directly or indirectly contact, influence, threaten, or
intimidate any witness, particularly family members of the
deceased.
(b) The applicant shall report to the Karurba Marg Police
Station, Mumbai twice a month, specifically on the 1st and
15th day of each month, between 10:00 a.m. and 12:006
::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/08/2025 21:33:47 :::
1-ba4079-2024.docnoon, until further orders.
(c) The applicant shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction
of the Trial Court until further orders, except for marking
presence and attending trial.
(d) The applicant shall not commit any offence or engage
in any criminal activity during the pendency of the trial.
(e) The applicant shall, at the time of furnishing surety,
provide his current residential address and mobile number to
the Investigating Officer as well as the Trial Court, and shall
inform the Court in writing of any change in residence or
contact details during the pendency of the case.
(f) In case of any breach of the conditions mentioned
above, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.
13. The bail application is allowed and disposed of.
14. The interim application also stands disposed of in terms of
this order.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
7
::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 19/08/2025 21:33:47 :::