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 crime, anticipatory bail is granted.
Summary
Kalim Rahim Shah applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving alleged supply of contraband gutkha, charged under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Food Safety and Standards Act. The FIR is based on a raid that seized a large quantity of gutkha from a co-accused, whose statement implicates Shah as a supplier. Shah contended that the co-accused’s statement is the sole piece of incriminating material and lacks evidentiary value, and that no other proof links him to the crime. The State argued that the seriousness of the offence, the quantity seized, and Shah’s criminal antecedents justify denial of bail. The Court held that, in the absence of any independent evidence connecting Shah to the contraband, the co-accused’s statement alone cannot sustain a denial of anticipatory bail, rendering his antecedents irrelevant, and therefore granted the bail application on an interim basis.
Issues considered
- Whether a co-accused's statement alone is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal antecedents are relevant when no substantive evidence links him to the alleged offence.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and quantity of contraband seized justify denial of anticipatory bail in the absence of other evidence.
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), 27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), 59
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- co-accused statement
- evidentiary value
- contraband gutkha
- Food Safety and Standards Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal antecedents
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:27450
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1264 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.0058/2025, 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), 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 1264.2026.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 1264.2026.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, the
application is allowed in terms of interim order.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
ABA 1264.2026.odt 3 of 3
Checking your session…