Bombay High Court
SHAHRUKH YUNUS PATELversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail, holding that the co‑accused’s statement alone does not constitute admissible evidence to link the applicant to the offences.
Summary
Shaikh Patel applied for anticipatory bail in a case (Crime No. 580/2026) involving alleged violations of Sections 3, 7 and 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR was based on a raid conducted on secret information, during which firearms were seized and the applicant’s alleged involvement was inferred solely from a co‑accused’s statement. The applicant argued that the charge‑sheet contained no evidence linking him to the offences, and the court found that the co‑accused’s statement, even if accepted, is not admissible evidence against him and no other material exists. Consequently, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application, imposing conditions of a personal bond, surety, non‑contact with witnesses, and non‑interference with evidence. The order was directed to be communicated to the investigating police station.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be denied when the only allegation against the applicant is a co‑accused’s statement.
- Whether a co‑accused’s statement, without corroborating evidence, is sufficient to establish prima facie case under Sections 3, 7 and 25 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the applicant’s antecedents justify refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 3, 7
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Arms Act
- Section 3
- Section 7
- Section 25
- co‑accused statement
- evidentiary insufficiency
- bail conditions
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
927 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1329 OF 2026
SHAHRUKH YUNUS PATEL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Mr. M. H. T. Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant
Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondents/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. The Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.
580/2026, registered with Shrirampur City Police Station, District
Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 7 and 25 of the
Arms Act.
2. The First Information Report indicates that, on the basis of secret
information, a raid was conducted, during which firearms and live cartridges
were seized from the co-accused. The involvement of the present Applicant is
sought to be established on the basis of the statement of the co-accused.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that, except for the alleged
statement of the co-accused, there is absolutely no evidence connecting the
format.odt 1 of 3
Applicant with the crime in question. According to him, the charge-sheet has
already been filed and it does not contain any evidence against the Applicant.
4. Learned APP opposed the application by referring to the antecedents of
the Applicant. It is her contention that the name of the Applicant has been
disclosed by the co-accused and that the same is sufficient to indicate his
involvement in the crime. There is, however, no dispute about the fact that the
charge-sheet has already been filed.
5. Perusal of the record indicates that, even if the alleged statement of the
co-accused is accepted, the same, by itself, is not admissible in evidence
against the present Applicant. There is no other evidence connecting the
Applicant with the crime. The charge-sheet also does not disclose any other
material sufficient to establish his complicity therein. Hence, the following
order:
ORDER
(i) Application is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with
Crime No. 580/2026, registered with Shrirampur City Police
Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable
under Sections 3, 7 and 25 of the Arms Act, he shall be
released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount.
format.odt 2 of 3
(iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(v) He further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.
6. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
format.odt 3 of 3
Checking your session…