Recovery of Torso and Severed Head at the Accused’s Instance Is a Circumstance of Great Evidentiary Value: Bombay High Court Refuses Bail in Alleged Beheading Case

“It is the discovery of the dead body of the deceased himself which goes to the very root of the case, as the discovery directly connects the accused to the concealment and disposal of the body.” —  A single‑judge Bench of the Bombay High Court (Coram: Amit Borkar, J.) dismissed the application for regular bail filed by Shafiq Ali Haider under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.414 of 2023 registered at Panvel City Police Station. The Court held that the material on record—most notably the applicant’s disclosure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act leading to recovery of the torso and the severed head, CCTV footage showing last‑seen together plus movement with a gunny bag, and corroborative witness statements—forms a prima facie, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the applicant’s involvement in a brutal murder and subsequent concealment of the body. Bail was refused on the ground that the offence is grave and the prosecution case prima facie strong.

Allegations, Investigation and the Arrest

The case arose after the deceased, Mohd. Aslam Harshad, was reported missing and later found dismembered. The prosecution alleges that on 27 June 2023 the applicant beheaded the deceased with a fish‑cutting knife following a quarrel over an alleged unpaid debt of Rs.57,000, placed the body parts in multiple gunny bags, and disposed of them. An FIR under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered on 14 July 2023; the applicant was arrested on 15 July 2023. The police recorded alleged disclosure statements under Section 27, recovered torso and head at locations pointed out by the applicant, seized CCTV footage showing the applicant and the deceased together and the applicant carrying a bag, and recorded witness statements (including that of Rohit Kumar who says he helped dispose of a “dead goat” at the applicant’s request and was paid Rs.200).

The Court addressed whether the circumstantial and discovery evidence on record—standing alone or read together—disclosed a prima facie case warranting continued custody rather than bail. The Court emphasised two central legal propositions drawn from the material and reasoned conclusions of the trial‑stage investigation:

“It is the discovery of the dead body of the deceased himself which goes to the very root of the case, as the discovery directly connects the accused to the very act of homicide or its concealment.”

The Court explained the distinct evidentiary weight of different kinds of recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act: the recovery of a weapon ordinarily requires independent corroboration to show use in the crime; by contrast, the recovery of the dead body (or its parts) at the accused’s instance carries greater probative force because it establishes both occurrence of death and the accused’s knowledge of concealment.

The Court found that the immediacy between the disclosure and the recovery, contemporaneous panchanamas with independent witnesses, and the accused’s failure to proffer any alternative source of his knowledge (for example, that he merely saw someone else conceal the body or was told about it) justified the prima facie inference that the applicant himself concealed the body.

Factual Matrix the Court Relied On

The Court highlighted that the prosecution’s case rests on a coherent chain of circumstances which, taken together, point only to the applicant’s involvement: the deceased was last seen with the applicant; CCTV footage corroborates proximity in time and shows the applicant later carrying a heavy gunny bag on a two‑wheeler; the applicant made disclosures under Section 27 which led to recovery of the torso and, shortly thereafter, the head; and an independent witness (Rohit Kumar) corroborates the applicant’s movement and conduct in the early hours when the disposal allegedly occurred.

On the defence contentions, the Court observed that the absence of visible blood stains on CCTV, the decomposed condition of the body preventing precise time‑of‑death determination, or the claim that the recovery place was publicly accessible, did not, at the bail stage, dislodge the cumulative prima facie weight of the prosecution’s material. “The quality, distance, angle, and lighting conditions at the time of recording determine the visibility of such details,” the Court noted when addressing the CCTV‑visibility point; decomposition affects precision of timing but not the probative value of last‑seen and disclosure circumstances.

Court’s Reasoning on Circumstantial Evidence and Last‑Seen Theory

The Court reiterated settled propositions applicable at the bail stage in circumstantial cases: a court must test whether the prosecution material, prima facie, forms a complete and coherent chain that leads to only one reasonable inference (the accused’s guilt). The “last‑seen together” circumstance was held to be independently significant: where the accused was the last known companion of the deceased and offers no plausible explanation for how they parted company, a presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act may arise about the accused’s exclusive knowledge of the subsequent events.

The Court concluded that these combined strands—last‑seen evidence, disclosure leading to recovery of body parts, corroborative witness testimony, and CCTV movement—constitute a formidable prima facie case which militates against release on bail in a brutal murder and evidence‑destruction matter.

Disposition and Reasoning on Bail Principles

The Court balanced the presumption that bail is the rule against the exceptional seriousness of the alleged crime and the strength of the prima facie material. It held that the nature of the allegations (extreme brutality and deliberate evidence destruction), coupled with the risk of tampering with the prosecution’s case and influencing witnesses (several of whom are local to the applicant’s area), made continued custody necessary. The Court emphasised that at the bail stage it is not required to test each piece of evidence with trial‑level forensic scrutiny; rather, the relevant question is whether the pre‑trial material discloses a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail.

“The material presently on record, in the opinion of this Court, clearly satisfies that test.”

The Bombay High Court dismissed Bail Application No. 2829 of 2025. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence—most notably the accused’s disclosure under Section 27 and the consequent recovery of the torso and head, corroborated by CCTV and independent witness testimony—forms an unbroken prima facie chain pointing to the applicant’s involvement in murder and concealment of the body, and that the seriousness of the offence and attendant risks weigh heavily against bail.

Date of Decision: October 13, 2025