No Proclamation, No Direct Link To Killers | Bombay High Court Grants Bail In Premeditated Murder Conspiracy Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Bombay at Goa, Single Bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes, granted bail to an individual accused of criminal conspiracy and murder under Sections 120-B, 302, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court ordered the applicant’s release subject to strict conditions, noting that there was no standing warrant or declaration of absconding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and that the trial may face delay without his release.
The case arises from Crime No. 50/2021 registered on 16 July 2021 at Vasco Da Gama Police Station. The applicant was designated Accused No. 4 in the chargesheet filed on 12 October 2021 and was implicated in the alleged conspiracy to eliminate one Amar Naik. The prosecution stated that the applicant objected to the relationship between the deceased and his sister, leading him to conspire with Accused No. 3 to engage hitmen, Accused Nos. 1 and 2.
It was alleged that the applicant transferred funds to Accused No. 3, who used the money to hire assailants. The prosecution outlined that Accused Nos. 1 and 2, residents of Uttar Pradesh temporarily residing in Panvel, were brought to Goa and accommodated at a guesthouse owned by Accused No. 3’s brother. Pretending to be interested in purchasing land, they arranged to meet the deceased on 15 July 2021. The deceased was allegedly shot by Accused No. 1 during this meeting. A witness, Pritesh Ghadi, was present and intervened during the incident.
Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested the following day, and two firearms were recovered based on their disclosure. Accused No. 3 was arrested on 17 July 2021. Analysis of a phone recovered from Accused No. 3 yielded voice recordings of conversations with the applicant. The prosecution claimed these recordings demonstrated the planning of the murder, with the applicant identified by a phone number and name “Reez.”
The investigating officer opposed the bail, citing the need for a voice sampling test, the applicants overstay in Dubai post the expiry of his passport and visa, and the potential threat to witnesses if bail were granted.
The applicant contended that he was unaware of the charges until seeking passport renewal in April 2023. He claimed that he obtained an Outpass under the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme and voluntarily returned to India, where he was arrested on 27 October 2024. His application for anticipatory bail was earlier rejected by the Sessions Court on grounds of alleged evasion.
The Sessions Court rejected his regular bail application on 21 February 2025, again citing his absence and the risk of interference in investigation. The applicant stated that summons was first issued only on 17 January 2024, and no proclamation or warrant under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued.
Accused No. 3 had been granted bail on 7 August 2023 on the basis of lack of evidence connecting the monetary transfers to payment for the murder and the absence of a vital role in the execution of the crime. The applicant invoked this order to claim parity.
The Court stated "Though there is reference to the Accused in the Chargesheet, treating him as an absconder, he could not be considered as one, for want of any orders or declaration being passed in terms of Section 82 of Cr. P.C."
It was further observed: "There is no material on record to demonstrate that the Applicant had a past criminal record or dubious antecedent which disentitle him to bail."
The Court acknowledged the heinous nature of the offence but recorded: "The conspiracy between Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who have allegedly carried out the killing, and Accused Nos. 3 and 4 will require to be established in a trial."
On the issue of trial delay, the Court noted: "This might entail a further delay in deciding whether Charge should be framed against the Applicant, and if such Charge is framed, the trial may have to commence de novo."
Addressing the absence of a standing warrant or summons, the Court recorded: "This was done without taking recourse to Section 82 Cr. P.C., as no warrant was issued to the Applicant after attempts to serve him with the summons and securing his presence failed."
Regarding the material evidence, the Court stated: "Though the money trail between Accused No. 1 and 2 may have been prima facie established... there appears to be no direct material on record to establish the use of this money to pay Accused Nos. 1 and 2, to engage the services in committing the crime."
On the voice recordings, the Court recorded: "These are yet to be established by a report of the voice analysers with respect to the present Applicant; the report of such analysis is yet to be procured."
The Court held that inference should not be drawn at this stage: "Subject to the Rules of proof of Electronic Evidence in the form of voice recordings... at this stage, one ought not to draw inferences on the conspiracy allegedly hatched by Accused Nos. 3 and 4."
The Court also stated: "Considering that his arrest on 27.10.2024 on arrival at Mopa Airport from Dubai, was much after Charge had been framed against Accused No. 3 and trial had commenced without a proclamation against the Applicant, this would not be a circumstance which would weigh against the Applicant for grant of bail."
The Court granted bail to the applicant on specific terms. It ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 50/2021 upon execution of a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of like amount before the Sessions Court, South Goa at Margao.
The Court directed that the applicant must furnish to the Investigating Officer his Aadhaar card, full residential address, email ID, and mobile phone number. The applicant is required to report to the Vasco Police Station on the first Saturday of each month between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. starting 28 June 2025 until further orders.
It further ordered that the applicant shall not interfere with any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. He must reside at the address given to the court and not change his residence without informing the Sessions Court at Margao.
The Court prohibited the applicant from travelling outside the State of Goa without the court’s permission and required him to deposit any valid passport in his possession with the Sessions Court until the trial concludes.
Finally, the Court directed that the applicant must attend all hearings of the trial court unless exempted.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. G. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tejas Rane and Ms. Misbah Shaikh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Bhobe, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Reez Ibrahim Shaikh v. State of Goa
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-GOA:948
Case Number: CRMAB-26-2025
Bench: Justice Valmiki Menezes
[Read/Download order]
