Bombay High Court
KALIM RAHIM SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
In the absence of any evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged offence, anticipatory bail must be granted and the applicant's antecedents are irrelevant.
Summary
The applicant sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with Crime No.0059/2025 involving alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Food Safety and Standards Act. The FIR recorded a raid that seized a large quantity of contraband gutkha from a co-accused, whose statement implicated the applicant as a supplier. The applicant argued that the co-accused’s statement was the sole piece of evidence and lacked evidentiary value, and that his liberty should be protected in the absence of any other connecting proof. The State contended that the seriousness of the offence, the quantity seized, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents warranted denial of bail. The Court observed that no additional evidence linked the applicant to the crime and that the co-accused’s statement could only aid further investigation, not justify denial of bail; consequently, antecedents were deemed irrelevant and the anticipatory bail application was allowed by interim order.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only incriminating material is the statement of a co-accused.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal antecedents are relevant for bail consideration in the absence of substantive evidence.
- Whether the co-accused's statement has evidentiary value sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 123, 223, 274, 275 r/w 3(5)
- Food Safety and Standards Act — s. 26(2), 26(2)(a), 26(2)(i), 27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), 59
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- co-accused statement
- evidentiary value
- criminal antecedents
- Food Safety and Standards Act
- contraband gutkha
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:27444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1262 OF 2025
KALIM RAHIM SHAH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
…
Mr. Joyeb I. Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A. V. Lawate, APP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 10th JULY, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime
No.0059/2025, registered with Rahata Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for
the offences punishable under Sections, 123, 223, 274, 275 r/w 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 26(2), 26(2)(a), 26(2)(i), 27(3)
(d), 27(3)(e) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
2. The First Information Report indicates that a raid was conducted in
which a considerably huge quantity of contraband gutkha was seized from the
co-accused. On the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the prosecution
seeks to implicate the present applicant in the crime. The applicant is alleged
to be a supplier of the contraband gutkha.
ABA 1262.2025 .odt 1 of 3
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that, except for the alleged
statement of the co-accused, there is no evidence to connect the applicant
with the crime. It is further argued that the statement of the co-accused has
no evidentiary value and, in the absence of any other connecting evidence, the
involvement of the applicant in the crime cannot be presumed. It is further
argued that though antecedents are alleged against the applicant, in the
absence of any evidence showing his involvement in the crime, his liberty
deserves to be protected.
4. Learned APP opposed the grant of relief to the applicant by citing the
seriousness of the crime as well as the quantity of contraband seized at the
instance of the co-accused. It is his submission that the statement of the co-
accused may not be relevant at the trial; however, it can be considered by the
Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. He submits that the
applicant has criminal antecedents and, therefore, the application deserves to
be rejected.
5. Prima facie, a perusal of the record indicates that the contraband
gutkha was seized from the co-accused. No doubt, the statement of the co-
accused would be relevant for the purpose of further investigation. However,
during the course of investigation, no further evidence has been collected
against the present applicant showing any connection between the applicant
ABA 1262.2025 .odt 2 of 3
and the co-accused. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held, at
this stage, that the applicant is connected with the crime in question. Once it
is so held, the antecedents of the applicant become irrelevant. Hence
Application is allowed in terms of interim order.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
ABA 1262.2025 .odt 3 of 3
Checking your session…