Bombay High Court

SIRAJ MOHAMMAD YUNUS QURESHI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that the existence of prima facie material and the seriousness of the offence preclude the grant of anticipatory bail, and dismissed the application.

Summary

The applicants, Siraj and Mohammad Kaif, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with Crime No. 0066 of 2026 involving offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR dated 7 February 2026 described an assault on a victim with an iron rod and knives, naming five co‑accused, while the applicants were added later through a supplementary witness statement. The prosecution argued that an eyewitness, Sayyed Latif, identified the applicants as assailants wielding a Khanjir and that medical evidence confirmed fatal chest injuries, establishing a prima facie case. The defence contended that the applicants were not in the original FIR and that the supplementary statement was fabricated, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. The Court held that the absence from the initial FIR does not create a right to pre‑arrest bail when strong prima facie material, including eyewitness identification and medical reports, exists, especially given the seriousness of the crime and the use of a deadly weapon. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused were not named in the initial FIR but later added through a supplementary statement.
Whether the presence of prima facie evidence, such as eyewitness identification and medical reports, precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the filing of a charge‑sheet affects the entitlement to anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103, 109, 118, 189, 190, 191

Subjects

anticipatory bail
prima facie evidence
eyewitness identification
medical evidence
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
charge-sheet
serious offence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41331
                                                                         APPLN-1189.odt



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1189 OF 2026
          1.Siraj S/o Mohammad Yunus Qureshi
          2. Mohammad Kaif S/o Mohammad Yunus Qureshi                  ...Applicants

                VERSUS

          1.The State of Maharashtra
          2. The Investigation Officer                           ...Respondents

          Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant
          Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent-State

                                              CORAM       : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                              DATE        : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026


          PER COURT :-
          1.          The Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.

          0066 of 2026, registered on 07.02.2026, at the Hingoli City Police Station,

          District Hingoli for offences punishable under sections 109, 118(1), 118(2),

          189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, and 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for

          short ‘BNS’).


          2.          It is the case of the prosecution that the motive behind the

          alleged incident originates from a dispute two months prior between the

          father of co-accused Abbas Qureshi and informant’s paternal uncle i.e. Latif

          Sayyed Mehboob. As per the First Information Report lodged on

          07/02/2026 by the informant i.e. Sayyed Wasim Sayyed Salim his brother,

          Sayyed Kalim was summoned near Mehrajulum Masjid on 06.02.2026.

                                           Page 1 of 4
                                                                 APPLN-1189.odt



Upon reaching the spot, the informant found his brother lying injured with

wounds on his back and chest. It is alleged that co-accused Abbas Qureshi

was armed with an iron rod, while co-accused Maifuz Qureshi Shaikh,

Shaikh Adil Shaik Anwar Qureshi, Juned Anwar Qureshi, Shoib Anwar

Qureshi were also present along with meat-cutting knives. Specific overt

acts are attributed to co-accused Abbas Qureshi of delivering a blow to the

head with an iron rod, causing severe injuries to informant, whereas the

other accused allegedly assaulted the informant on his waist and thigh. On

these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against five named

accused. Upon investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed.


3.          Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants

were not named in the initial First Information Report lodged on

07.02.2026 regarding the alleged incident dated 6.02.2026. It is submitted

that the applicants were subsequently named as accused armed with a

Khanjir only through a supplementary statement of the informant. The

statement was recorded as an afterthought, solely to falsely implicate the

applicants and absolve the co-accused Maifuz Qureshi. It is submitted that

the eyewitnesses were acquainted with the original        accused persons,

eliminating any possibility of wrong identification at the first instance.

Additionally, as the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already

been filed and no recovery remains to be made from the applicants, their



                                  Page 2 of 4
                                                                  APPLN-1189.odt



custodial interrogation is unnecessary.

4.          Learned APP opposed the grant of any relief to the applicants.

He submitted that although the applicants were not named in the initial

First Information Report, the statement of witness Sayyed Latif clearly

reveals that applicant no. 1 and 2 assaulted deceased Kalim with a Khanjir.

He further submitted that as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the

chest injuries sustained by the injured were fatal in nature and sufficient to

cause death. He contended that the injuries reflected in the Post Mortem

Report directly corroborate the specific allegations made against present

applicants, thereby it is a prima facie case against the applicants and

custodial interrogation of the present applicants is necessary.


5.          After hearing both sides and perusal of the charge-sheet, that

the applicants were not named in the initial FIR does not automatically

make them eligible for pre-arrest bail. Eye-witness Sayyed Latif clearly

identified applicants no. 1 and 2 as the assailants who attacked the victim

with a Khanjir.     This testimony is corroborated by medical evidence,

including the Post Mortem Report and the Medical Officer’s opinion,

confirming that the fatal chest injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course

of nature to cause death. Moreover, the filing of the charge-sheet does not

dilute the heinous nature of the crime or create an absolute right to pre-

arrest bail in the presence of strong prima facie material. In view of the



                                   Page 3 of 4
                                                                 APPLN-1189.odt



seriousness of the alleged crime, the direct roles assigned, the deadly

weapon used, and the medical evidence, there is no merit in the present

application and the relief cannot be granted to present applicants.


6.          In view of the above discussion, the application for anticipatory

bail is hereby dismissed.


7.          It is clarified that above observations are prima facie in nature

and would not affect the parties during trial.


                                                     (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                   Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…