'Meant To Strike Terror': Bombay High Court Denies Bail To Vet Accused In Amravati Pharmacist Murder
Isabella Mariam
The Bombay High Court Division Bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak dismissed an appeal seeking bail and upheld the continued custody of an accused charged in the June 2022 killing of a pharmacist in Amravati. The Court declined to extend bail after finding reasonable grounds, at this stage, to believe the accusations were prima facie true. According to the prosecution, the case concerns an alleged conspiracy that culminated in the victim being attacked after he shared a message supporting the controversial remarks of a former BJP spokesperson on Prophet Mohammed, amid heightened local tension. The accused is alleged to have circulated an instigative WhatsApp post identifying the victim and calling for action, and to have played a role in initiating the plot.
The appeal arose from rejection of a bail application filed by an accused who was arraigned in a case registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, relating to the murder of a veterinary medical shop owner at Amravati. The prosecution case traced the sequence of events to a controversial public statement that led to communal tension and social media exchanges. The deceased had shared a message supporting the statement in a WhatsApp group consisting of veterinary professionals.
According to the prosecution, the appellant, a veterinary doctor and a member of the same group, circulated the deceased’s post along with an allegedly instigating message to multiple individuals and WhatsApp groups after altering the deceased’s contact details, with the intent to expose him. It was alleged that the appellant thereafter met another accused, following which a conspiracy was formed involving several persons. The prosecution alleged that multiple meetings were held, communication took place through phone calls, and eventually the deceased was murdered by co-accused acting pursuant to the conspiracy.
The appellant contended that his intention was limited to affecting the deceased’s business and that he was not part of subsequent meetings or the actual commission of the offence. The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the material collected during investigation and statutory restrictions under the UAPA.
The Court examined the material placed with the police report and assessed whether reasonable grounds existed to believe that the accusation was prima facie true. It recorded that “if that post by the deceased is read in juxtaposition with the alleged instigating text message that Appellant added to the screenshot of that post of the deceased coupled with the statements of the witnesses, it is clear that the Appellant got upset and angry, and he wanted to avenge the deceased for his said act.”
The messages reads as: “Amit Medical Prabhat Takiz Tehsil ke Samane isko batana hain ke jin logon ke bharose kamai ki unse hi dushmani ka anjam kya hota hai, is message ko zyada se zyada group or gore walo ko send kare.” (Owner of Amit Medical in front of Prabhat Talkies, needs to understand what is the result of enmity with those who give him an earning, share this message as much possible)
While considering the defence submission that the message was intended only to damage business, the Court stated that “the word ‘group’ suffixed to the words ‘zyada se zyada’, clearly depicts the otherwise intention ‘to avenge’ behind that message.” It further noted that “the deceased was specifically selected to target,” and that the language used in the message did not support the claim of a limited commercial objective.
The Bench took note of the dissemination of the message beyond alleged customers and observed that “instead of that, what the Appellant did, he circulated the post crafted by him in the WhatsApp group… as well as to many individuals, irrespective of whether the recipients were customers of the deceased or not.”
On the issue of conspiracy, the Court observed that “conspiracy can be inferred and proved by circumstantial evidence also,” and that absence of presence in every meeting was not determinative. It recorded that “large numbers of phone calls were exchanged by the accused persons including the Appellant,” and that such circumstances prima facie indicated coordination.
Addressing the gravity of allegations, the Court stated that “prima facie it appears that, a terrorist gang was formed by the accused persons… to avenge the alleged dishonour of their faith… and to strike terror into the hearts and minds of general public.” The Court concluded that "Undoubtedly, the offence alleged is grave and heinous in nature. Such offences affect the very core and conscious of the society, make it vulnerable and think to live in constant fear. Having reached to this prima facie opinion, we are not inclined to exercise the discretion of bail in favour of the Appellant."
The Judges observed: "However, that itself is not sufficient to accept that the Appellant (Kolhe) has been innocent or was not part of the conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Because, from the material on record it appears that, after igniting the anger with his instigating message, the Appellant shrewdly kept himself away from co-accused till the commission of murder, so that he cannot be held responsible for the crime. The 25 phone calls exchanged between him and A-5, also indicates the same. Meaning, the Appellant was quietly active behind the curtain,"
Referring to precedent on bail under UAPA, the Bench recorded that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation against the Appellant is prima facie true,” and that the Court was therefore not inclined to grant bail.
The Court held that “having reached to this prima facie opinion, we are not inclined to exercise the discretion of bail in favour of the Appellant. The Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Advocate, along with Mr. Sharif Shaikh, Ms. Afrin Khan, Mr. Muzammil Shaikh, Mr. Ejaz Shaikh, Mr. Anush Shetty, Ms. Muskan Shaikh, and Ms. Benazir Khan, instructed by Advocate Mateen Shaikh.
For the Respondents: Smt. Madhavi H. Mhatre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra; Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General of India, along with Mr. Chintan Shah, Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. Sandeep Sadawarte, Advocate Prasanna Bhangale, and Mr. Krishnakand Deshmukh for the National Investigation Agency.
Case Title: Yusuf Khan s/o Bahadur Khan v State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AS:2620-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2024
Bench: Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak
