Bombay High Court

ALIMODDIN KHAMRODDIN KHATIBversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, finding sufficient grounds for custodial interrogation.

Summary

The applicant, Alimoddin Khamroddin Khatib, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest under Sections 123, 223, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act in connection with a raid that seized contraband Gutka and Pan Masala. The prosecution’s case relied on a co‑accused’s statement, a witness statement, and call‑detail records linking the applicant to the co‑accused. The applicant argued that there was no direct evidence against him, that the Supreme Court was yet to decide on the applicability of Section 123, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the contraband had already been seized. The respondent highlighted prior similar charges, the CDR evidence, and the need to interrogate the applicant to trace the source of the contraband. The court found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to justify custody for investigation and rejected the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the only substantive evidence is a co‑accused’s statement, a witness statement, and CDR evidence linking the applicant to the crime.
Whether the pending Supreme Court decision on the interpretation of Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether custodial interrogation is necessary despite the seizure of the contraband.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 123, 223, 275
Food Safety and Standards Act — s. 59

Subjects

anticipatory bail
co‑accused statement
call detail records
contraband seizure
Food Safety and Standards Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
custodial interrogation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44233
922-ABA-1325-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

922 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1325 OF 2026

Alimoddin Khamroddin Khatib
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant
Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondents

CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE :SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

P. C. :

1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.

469/2026 registered with Police Station Nanalpeth, District Parbhani for the

offences punishable under Sections 123, 223, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act.

2. First information report indicates that on the basis of the secret

information received, raid was conducted on Varad Laxmi Provision (Kirana

Store) belonging to co-accused Amil. From the said premises, contraband

Gutka and Pan Masala worth Rs.14,908/- was seized. On the basis of

statement of co-accused at the time of said raid, involvement of the

Applicant is sought in the crime.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicability

of offence punishable under Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

(Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code) is subject matter of decision before

Page 1 of 3
922-ABA-1325-2026.odt

the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is his submission that save and except alleged

statement of co-accused, there is no evidence to connect Applicant with the

crime in question. He also argued that since the entire contraband already

been seized, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary.

4. Learned APP opposed grant of any relief to the Applicant by

referring to the fact that previously similar offence has been registered

against Applicant. She drew attention of the Court to the investigation

papers, which indicates statement of witnesses so also the CDR indicating

the nexus between the present Applicant and co-accused. According to her,

for the purpose of finding out the source of contraband, since manufacturing

of contraband is banned in the State of Maharashtra, his custodial

interrogation is necessary.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that the Applicant has one

more similar complaint against him and in connection with the said crime,

he is on bail. It would have been a different case if there was no evidence

but for the statement of co-accused to accept involvement of the Applicant

in this crime. Perusal of the investigation papers indicates that there is

statement of witness who confirms the fact with regard to transaction

between present Applicant and co-accused. Apart from this, there is

evidence in the form of CDR showing close connection of the Applicant with

co-accused including calls on next date of the lodging of the FIR too. Apart

Page 2 of 3
922-ABA-1325-2026.odt

from this, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP that in

this backdrop, investigating agency is justified in seeking custody of the

Applicant is order to ascertain source of the contraband.

6. In view of above, Anticipatory Bail Application stands rejected.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani

Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…