Terrorist Gang Formed To Strike Terror: Bombay High Court Refuses To Grant Bail To Vet Booked For Killing Chemist Who Supported Nupur Sharma’s Comment

The High Court was considering an Appeal directed against the Order of the Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, rejecting the bail application of the appellant/original accused in a case registered under Sections 109, 120B, 302, 153-A, 201 & 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 16, 18 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak held, “Considering the material on record, prima facie it appears that, a terrorist gang was formed by the accused persons under the leadership of A-7 to avenge the alleged dishonour of their faith by the deceased, by brutally killing him and to strike terror into the hearts and minds of general public irrespective of whether they supported the spokesperson’s comment or not. Therefore when the deceased was not found on the previous day, the accused found him on the very next day and committed his murder.”

Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry represented the Appellant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Madhavi H. Mhatre represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

On May 26, 2002, the ex-spokesperson of the BJP made a controversial comment in a TV debate, which went viral on social media and caused outrage in the Muslim community at Amravati. An FIR was registered, and as alleged, a special meeting of the Muslim community was called by the other accused to discuss the issue of the controversial comment. The deceased, Umesh Kolhe, was a Veterinary Medical Shop owner, and the Appellant is a Veterinary Doctor who used to visit the deceased’s shop to get medicines. They both were members of a WhatsApp group, namely “Black Freedom”, where many other veterinary chemists and medical representatives were members. The deceased posted one photo of the said ex-spokesperson alongwith certain text message from his mobile in support of her comment, in that WhatsApp group. The Appellant, who was the only Muslim member in that WhatsApp group, got offended by that post. The Appellant decided to avenge the deceased, and typed his own instigating message. It was alleged that the Appellant then, with a criminal intent, visited the other accused persons. In this meeting, the criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased began.

The deceased was restrained and stabbed in the neck with a sharp knife with the intention to behead him. As a result, the deceased suffered a serious injury and died. On receipt of the information of the murder, an FIR under Section 302 and 34 IPC was registered against 3 unknown persons. During the investigation, Sections 153-A, 153-B and 120-B of IPC and Sections 16, 18, and 20 of UAPA came to be added. The Central Government directed the NIA to investigate the case. The sanction was accorded by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under Section 45 (1) of UAPA, against the Appellant and his co-accused. The Appellant was arrested, and a charge sheet was filed against the Appellant.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Appellant drafted his message in such a manner that, on reading it, any individual or group of individuals would easily get angry and make up their mind to avenge the deceased. The Bench further noticed that there was already outrage due to the controversial comment, and the societal situation was very tense. Meanwhile, several individuals were threatened because they had posted the messages supporting that comment, like the deceased and therefore, were commanded to post their apology. “The Appellant being a literate and most importantly a veterinary doctor, was capable of understanding that delicate situation in the interest of public at large and to maintain the orderly society. But he believed in sending his message to take revenge of the deceased and to meet A-5 for that end”, it added.

The Bench also noticed that 25 phone calls were exchanged by the appellant and other accused before and after the commission of the crime. Having regard to their acquaintance with each other, the Bench found the contention of the prosecution that after sending his instigating message, the Appellant had met with the fifth accused appeared probable. “Looking at the material on record it appears that, A-5 was the main conduit between the Appellant and the other co-accused”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that there was a meeting of minds by the Appellant and the other accused persons to hatch the criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased, which they did at the end. “Thus, even independent of the extra judicial confessions of the co-accused, there is a prima facie case against the Appellant of having committed the alleged offence”, it added.

“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 Bench held while dismissing the appeal.

Cause Title: Yusuf Khan v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:2620-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Sharif Shaikh, Afrin Khan, Muzammil Shaikh, Ejaz Shaikh, Anush Shetty, Muskan Shaikh, Benazir Khan, Mateen Shaikh

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Madhavi H. Mhatre, Additional Solicitor General of India Anil C. Singh, Advocates Chintan Shah, Aditya Thakkar, Sandeep Sadawarte, Prasanna Bhangale, Krishnakand Deshmuk

Click here to read/download Order