Bombay High Court
Mohammed Kam Ran Shaikh Alias Kamran … vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 August, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:36352
8-ba-1998-2025.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1998 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by
SHABNOOR
Mohammed Kamran Shaikh @
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
AYUB
PATHAN Date:
2025.08.25
16:13:50
Kamran Abdul Aziz Shaikh ... Applicant
+0530
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Mr. Anjali Awasthi a/w Rachana Mahale for the
Applicant.
Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for the State - respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 25, 2025
P.C.:
1. The present bail application is preferred by the applicant
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
praying for his release on regular bail in connection with Crime
No. 579 of 2018 registered at Vakola Police Station, Mumbai. The
said crime has been registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
which pertain to the offences of murder, causing disappearance of
evidence, criminal conspiracy and common intention.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the incident occurred
on 21st December 2018, a Friday. On that day, the complainant,
along with his father (the deceased), had gone to Kalina Jama
Masjid around 1:15 p.m. for attending Jummah Namaz. At about
1
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:23:42 :::
8-ba-1998-2025.doc
2:00 p.m., the complainant went home to pick up his brother
Rahim, who was to travel to Delhi. On returning to the Masjid with
Rahim, the complainant met three of Rahim’s friends who were
also scheduled to travel. The complainant purchased bread from a
shop and gave it to Rahim, after which Rahim and his friends left
in an OLA car. At that time, the complainant noticed one Sohail, a
relative of accused Amirshad Khan, sitting on a motorbike near the
Masjid.
3. Around 2:40 p.m., while returning home, the complainant
met his father near their residence. The deceased gave Prasad at
home and thereafter proceeded to his shop. Very shortly thereafter,
the complainant’s aunt, Shahana Samir Khan, telephoned his
mother and conveyed that the complainant’s father had been
killed. On hearing this shocking news, the complainant rushed to
the shop and saw a crowd gathered near Bismillah Milk Centre.
There, the complainant found his father lying in a pool of blood,
his Activa scooter beside him, and nearby a knife, an iron rod and
broken pieces of a plastic bamboo were also lying.
4. Upon inquiry, members of the public present at the spot
informed that the assault was carried out at the instigation of
Amirshad Khan. It is further alleged that his son, Azim Amirshad
Khan, struck the deceased with an iron rod; Zahid Amirshad Khan
attacked him with a knife; and two unknown persons used a knife
and plastic rod in the assault. Based on this information, the
complainant lodged the FIR.
2
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:23:42 :::
8-ba-1998-2025.doc
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted
that the allegations against the present applicant stand on the
same footing as that of some co-accused who have already been
enlarged on bail. He referred to the order of this Court in Bail
Application No. 1882 of 2025 dated 6th May 2025, whereby co-
accused Zahidshad Umarshad Khan @ Jahidshad was released on
bail. He also relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7496 of 2025 dated 1st
August 2025, granting bail to co-accused Mohinuddin @ Guddu
Shaikh. According to him, the role attributed to the applicant is
either identical to, or even less grave than, the role of Mohinuddin
@ Guddu Shaikh, who is alleged to have caused the main injury to
the deceased. On this ground of parity, it was urged that the
applicant also deserves to be released on bail.
6. Apart from the ground of parity, it was also submitted that
the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13th May 2019,
thereby having undergone incarceration for more than six and a
half years. In the backdrop of the fact that the trial is not likely to
conclude in the near future, it was contended that further
detention of the applicant would amount to undue hardship and
continued deprivation of his liberty.
7. Per contra, the learned APP has opposed the application. It is
contended that the case of the present applicant cannot be equated
with that of the co-accused who have been granted bail, since the
role attributed to the applicant is distinct and materially different.
The prosecution has specifically alleged that the applicant is one of
the principal assailants who directly caused injuries to the
3
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:23:42 :::
8-ba-1998-2025.doc
deceased during the incident. Considering the seriousness of the
offence and the nature of allegations, it is submitted that this is not
a fit case for exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant.
8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also
perused the material placed on record. At the outset, it is not in
dispute that certain co-accused, namely Zahidshad Umarshad Khan
@ Jahidshad, have been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, and co-accused Mohinuddin @ Guddu Shaikh has been
released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The allegations
attributed to the present applicant are not shown to be graver than
those against the said co-accused. On the contrary, the role of the
applicant appears to be on a similar footing. In such circumstances,
the principle of parity is clearly attracted.
9. It is also to be noted that the applicant has remained in
custody since 13th May 2019, which is a period of more than six
and a half years. Though the charge-sheet has been filed, the trial
has not commenced in full swing, and in view of the number of
witnesses and the nature of the case, its early conclusion does not
appear likely. Thus, continued detention of the applicant, when co-
accused similarly situated have already been enlarged on bail,
would amount to denial of the right to personal liberty guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. The objection raised by the learned APP that the role of the
applicant is distinct and serious cannot be ignored. However, once
the Court has already exercised its discretion to release co-accused
alleged to have played equally or even more serious roles, the
4
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:23:42 :::
8-ba-1998-2025.doc
applicant cannot be singled out for continued incarceration. The
settled position of law is that while considering bail, the Court has
to balance the seriousness of allegations with the constitutional
guarantee of liberty, particularly when the trial is unlikely to be
concluded in the near future.
11. Having regard to the principle of parity, the prolonged period
of incarceration, and the fact that the applicant’s continued
detention is not justified when co-accused have been granted bail,
I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise
discretion in favour of the applicant. Needless to state, the
applicant shall abide by strict conditions to ensure that he does not
misuse the liberty.
12. Hence, the following order is passed.
(i) Applicant Mohammed Kamran Shaikh @ Kamran
Abdul Aziz Shaikh is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount;
(ii) Before his actual release from jail, Applicant shall
furnish his address where he proposes to reside after his
release from jail to the concerned police station and also to
the Trial Court;
(iii) After his release from jail, Applicant shall report to the
Investigating Officer as and when called for;
(iv) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court on first Tuesday
of every month between 11:00 a.m. and 01:00 p.m. to mark5
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:23:42 :::
8-ba-1998-2025.dochis presence. If the first Tuesday of the said month falls on a
holiday and / or non Court working day, the Applicant shall
mark presence on the next working day;
(v) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the trial Court on all dates unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments,
if he does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for
cancellation of this order;
(vi) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner; and
(viii) In case of any infraction of the above conditions and /
or two consecutive defaults in marking his attendance before
Trial Court, it shall attract the provisions of Section 439(2) of
Cr.P.C. i.e. for cancellation of bail.
13. The bail application is allowed and disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
6
::: Uploaded on – 25/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 25/08/2025 21:23:42 :::