Bombay High Court
RAHIL SIDDIQUI SHAKEEL SIDDIQUIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that the FIR does not credibly implicate the applicants and therefore allowed anticipatory bail with conditions, confirming interim relief for most applicants.
Summary
The applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 98 of 2026, alleging that the FIR alleging assault on an informant was false and that the evidence, including CCTV footage and medical reports, did not implicate them. The prosecution argued that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly and bore collective responsibility for the assault. The court examined the credibility of the FIR, the injury certificate, and video evidence, finding that only the already‑arrested accused were shown to have caused the injuries. Consequently, the court confirmed interim bail relief for most applicants and granted anticipatory bail with conditions, while reserving further orders for two applicants pending clarification of alleged breaches. The order also directed that the trial court not be influenced by this bail order.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR alleging assault by the applicants is trustworthy on its face.
- Whether the applicants can be held liable as part of an unlawful assembly for the assault.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicants under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether any applicant has breached conditions of a prior bail order.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 351(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- assault
- unlawful assembly
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail conditions
- FIR credibility
- CCTV evidence
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42432
29-ABA-1276-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1276 OF 2026
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3132 OF 2026
Sohel Khan @ Laddu (name as per FIR)
Sohel Fahim Farooqui s/o Fahim Farooqui
(name as per AADHAR Card) ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1684 OF 2026
Osama Khan Kaleem Khan ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1009 OF 2026
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2393 OF 2026
Rahil Siddiqui Shakeel Siddiqui ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 875 OF 2026
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2299 OF 2026
Khan Minhaj Abdul Jalil Khan ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 743 OF 2026
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1796 OF 2026
Meraj Khan Jalil Khan ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
1 / 6
29-ABA-1276-26.odt
WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1400 OF 2026
Abdul Baseer Abdul Lateef ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
....
Mr. N.S. Ghanekar and Mr. A.K. Bhosle, Advocates for applicants in respective
applications
Ms. P.J. Bharad, A.P.P. for respondent – State
Mr. S.G. Laddha, Advocate for Assist to A.P.P. in all applications
....
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 98
of 2026 registered with City Chowk Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2),
191(3), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The F.I.R. indicates that according to the informant, applicant –
Mehraz Khan wanted to eliminate the informant. Therefore, he instructed his
nephew – Nadim Khan to keep an eye on him. On 26th March, 2026 the
informant and his friend Abul went to ACP Office in connection with prohibition
proceeding. When he was going towards his house at Mill Corner, he found
Nadim keeping an eye on him. When the informant stopped near City Chowk
Police Station for sometime, Nadim called someone on phone by pointing
towards him. When he was proceeding on his scooty alongwith his friend, the
2 / 6
29-ABA-1276-26.odt
applicants and co-accused came infront of his scooty. There is allegation
against Mohammad KhanMehraj Khan that he assaulted the informant on his
head with an iron rod. While assaulting he said that his father and uncle asked
him to come back only after killing the informant. There is further allegation
that other applicants also, with the help of baseball bat and stump caused
assault on him.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this is a clear case
of false implication. There is allegation against 8-10 persons of causing assault
on the informant. However, he sustained only two simple injuries of contused
lacerated wound. In support of this contention, he drew attention of the Court
to the injury certificate indicating causing two injuries on occipital region of the
informant. According to them, there is no evidence on record in order to show
the applicants caused assault on the informant. In support of his submission,
reference is made to video transcription of the incident. Thus, in view of the
same and having regard to the charge-sheet, custodial interrogation of the
applicant would not be necessary.
4. Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed
grant of any relief on the ground that there are allegations against the accused
persons and they being part of an unlawful assembly and therefore, responsible
for act of each of other. Learned A.P.P. drew attention of the Court towards the
CCTV footage, so also statement of PSI, who claimed to have witnessed the
incident. According to her, said statement is in support to show that the
3 / 6
29-ABA-1276-26.odt
informant was assaulted by all the accused persons including the applicants.
Having regard to the nature of assault, according to her, this is not a case to
protect liberty of the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the informant, drew attention of the Court to the
medical papers placed on record before this Court in support of his submission
that the though injury certificate in the charge-sheet indicates causing only two
injuries, there are number of other injuries caused on the person of the
informant. It is his submission that having regard to the medical papers, it
would be clear that there are number of assaults on the person of the informant.
He also made a grievance with regard to the manner in which the investigation
has been carried out. According to him, as far as applicant – Meraj Khan in ABA
No. 743 of 2026 is concerned, it is his contention that by flouting order and
breaching condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 05 th May, 2026, he
has entered in the jurisdiction of the prohibited area and therefore he is not
entitled for the relief. The allegation in respect of applicant – Khan Minhaj in
ABA No. 875 of 2026 to the effect that he has failed to attend the concerned
police station. He further pointed out that there are two non-cognizable
complaints lodged against both of them.
6. Learned counsel for these applicants submits that there is no breach
of any condition of the order and that he would substantiate the same.
7. At this stage, the Court is required to see as to whether the F.I.R.
itself is truthful on the face of record. There is allegation made in the F.I.R. that
4 / 6
29-ABA-1276-26.odt
about 8-10 persons caused assault on the informant. The injury certificate
placed on record however indicates, that the informant sustained two injuries
on occipital region which are attributable to accused who is already arrested. So
far as seven injuries pointed from the medical papers placed on record, they are
abrasions and not attributable to use of any weapons. Secondly, the allegations
of the informant about actual assault being caused by more than one person is
not supported by CCTV footage as well as video of incidents, which is part of
record. Said footage and transcription thereof clearly indicates attribution of
causing assault by the arrested accused and not by others. Even though
statement of the PSI is sought to be relied upon, same does not indicate any role
attributed against the applicants of actual assault. Therefore, this Court finds no
hesitation to confirm the interim relief granted to the applicants.
8. As far as applicant– Meraj Khan in ABA No. 743 of 2026 and
applicant – Khan Minhaj in ABA No. 875 of 2026 are concerned, since learned
counsel for these applicants seeks time to place on record appropriate material
to show that there is no breach of condition of the initial order passed by this
Court, no order is passed to their extent for the time being. It is clarified that
appropriate order shall be passed with regard to the grievance made by learned
counsel for the informant after hearing both sides. Hence, the order :-
ORDER
(I) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1276 of 2026 is allowed.
(i) In the event of arrest of applicant – Sohel Khan @ Laddu
alias Sohel Fahim Farooqui s/o Fahim Farooqui, in connection
5 / 6
29-ABA-1276-26.odt
with Crime No. 98 of 2026 registered with City Chowk Police
Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences
punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 189(2),
191(2), 191(3), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the like
amount.
(ii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when
required.
(iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(v) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.
(II) Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1009 of 2026, 1684 of 2026
and 1400 of 2026 are allowed. Interim relief granted in those
matters stand confirmed.
(III) All the pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(IV) List Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 743 of 2026 and 875 of
2026 on 21st September, 2026. Interim relief granted therein
to continue till then.
(V) It is clarified that the Trial Court shall not get influenced by
this order.
( R.M. JOSHI, J. )
SSD
6 / 6
Checking your session…