Bombay High Court
NILESH MANOJKUMAR PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- FARHAN PARVEZ DUBASH
Holding
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, holding that custodial interrogation was not warranted and bail could be granted with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Nilesh Prajapati, sought anticipatory bail after his name was added to FIR No. 0155/2026 through a supplementary statement by the complainant, although he was not originally named. The FIR alleged assault by four persons, and the supplementary statement implicated the applicant as the fifth assailant. The Sessions Court rejected his bail plea, citing lack of alibi and the seriousness of the offences, including Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. On appeal, the High Court noted that the applicant was not originally named, that the chargesheet had been filed, and that there was no material showing the necessity of custodial interrogation. Balancing the right to a fair investigation against the applicant’s liberty, the Court granted anticipatory bail with strict reporting and conduct conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accused’s name is added to the FIR via a supplementary statement.
- Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is indispensable for the investigation.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement warrants denial of bail under Sections 109, 118, 352, etc., of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 118(2), 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 3(5), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- supplementary statement
- FIR amendment
- custodial interrogation
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 109
- Section 482
Judgment
9. ABA-1436-2026.doc
Nilesh Prajapati vs. State
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1436 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI PRAKASH
PRAKASH PAWAR
PAWAR Date:
2026.06.06
Nilesh Manojkumar Prajapati .. Applicant
15:24:42
+0530
V/s.
State Of Maharashtra .. Respondent
______________________________________
Mr. Niraj Prajapati with Mr. Ganesh Jadhav & Mr. Akhilesh Singh, for the
Applicant.
Mr. Ashok S. Gawai, APP, for the Respondent-State.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
DATE : 5th JUNE 2026
(VACATION COURT)
ORDER:
1. By the present Application, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR
bearing C.R. No. 0155 of 2026 dated 10 th February 2026 registered with
Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under
Sections 118(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Pursuant to the investigation of the case, Sections 109(1), 352, 189(2),
189(4), 191(2) and 191(3) of the BNS were subsequently added to the FIR
by the Respondent.
2. The Applicant was not named in the original FIR dated 10 th February 2026,
and his name was included subsequently, pursuant to the Supplementary
statement of the Complainant / First Informant recorded during treatment at
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Hospital, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, the
Page 1 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 5th June 2026
9. ABA-1436-2026.doc
Nilesh Prajapati vs. State
following day. The FIR only named Mr. Akash Prajapati, (accused no.1),
Mr. Aman Yadav (accused no.2) and Mr. Mintu (accused no.3) and one
unknown person (accused no.4) who was subsequently identified as Mr.
Ritesh Yadav.
3. For the purposes of deciding the present Application, it is necessary to set
out the relevant facts in brief, which are set out hereunder:
i. The FIR came to be lodged by the Complainant, Mr. Aman Dinesh
Sharma, aged 19 years, wherein he stated that he is studying in First
Year, B. Com at Nirmal Degree College, Mumbai and is also working
at a cake shop at Gorai, Borivali (West), Mumbai. According to the
FIR, the Complainant states that the accused persons reside in the
same locality and are known to him.
ii. It is alleged in the FIR that on 9th February 2026, between 10.30 p.m.
and 10.45 p.m., while the Complainant was returning home from his
workplace and reached the road leading to the drain near Ghausia
Masjid, he noticed a crowd gathered there and stopped to ascertain the
reason. At that time, two motorcycles arrived, and the assailants
started abusing him.
iii. The FIR further reveals that an unknown boy wearing a black sando
vest struck the Complainant on the head from behind with a steel rod,
while accused no.3 grabbed his throat. It is further alleged that
accused no.3 shouted at the Complainant and told his accomplices to
Page 2 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 5th June 2026
9. ABA-1436-2026.doc
Nilesh Prajapati vs. State
hit him and thereafter, accused no. 1 struck the Complainant on the left
side of his head with a wooden rod. The FIR also states that in the
darkness, the Complainant was also him on the face with a steel ‘kada’
and a cement gutter chamber (lid), after which the accused
persons/assailants fled from the spot.
iv. The FIR reveals that the Complainant was taken by his brother, Mr.
Ankit Sharma and his friend, Mr. Jitendra Alok to Arvind Singh
Chauhan Hospital, Laljipada and was thereafter referred to Shatabdi
Hospital, Kandivali for further treatment, where he was admitted.
v. The following day viz. 11th February 2026, a Supplementary Statement
of the Complainant came to be recorded at the Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar Hospital, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, when the
Complainant added that due to inadvertence, he had forgotten to
mention and include the name of the Applicant in the FIR. In his
Supplementary Statement, the Complainant has asserted that the
Applicant had attacked him on his face with a steel ‘kada’ due to
which, he suffered injury on his mouth and started bleeding heavily.
vi. Thereafter, the Chargesheet dated 2 nd May 2026 came to be filed
against the accused persons (including the Applicant) under the
offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 109(1), 352, 189(2),
189(4), 191 (2), 191(3) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.
vii. Thereafter, the Applicant approached the Sessions Court at Dindoshi,
Page 3 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 5th June 2026
9. ABA-1436-2026.doc
Nilesh Prajapati vs. State
Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai, by filing Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 643 of 2026 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which came to be rejected
by an order dated 13th May 2026. A perusal of this order would reveal
that one of the grounds for rejection was that the FIR revealed that one
of the accused who was an unknown person was wearing a black
sando baniyan had assaulted the Complainant on his head with a steel
rod and the Supplementary Statement named the Applicant. The
Sessions Court has further held that the Applicant was unable to prima
facie corroborate his alibi and establish that he was not present on the
spot where the incident had taken place, but was instead, at a marriage
function in Malad. The Sessions Court has further held that since the
offence alleged to have been committed by the Applicant is punishable
under Section 109 of the BNS the punishment of which, may extend to
life imprisonment and since the Final Report (Chargesheet) was not
yet submitted against the Applicant, therefore the custodial
interrogation of the Applicant was necessary.
4. Mr. Niraj Prajapati, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, submits
that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and
contends that the Applicant was not named in the FIR and that his name has
been subsequently added only by way of the Supplementary Statement
given by the Complainant.
Page 4 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 5th June 2026
9. ABA-1436-2026.doc
Nilesh Prajapati vs. State
5. Mr. Prajapati submits that there is no specific overt act attributed to the
accused in the FIR except for a vague reference to an “unknown person”
and that the description of the unknown accused does not match the
physical appearance of the Applicant. He adds that the Applicant has no
direct connection with the incident and was not even present at the spot of
the incident, and has been dragged in only because he is the elder brother of
accused no.1.
6. He submits that the applicant was attending a marriage ceremony along
with his family and friends at the relevant time and that the Respondent has
not placed any cogent material necessitating his custodial interrogation.
7. He further submits that out of the four accused, three of them are juveniles,
who have since, already been released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board,
after their arrest. He adds that, the fourth accused person, namely Mr. Mintu
is presently in judicial custody. He points out that the Chargesheet dated 2 nd
May 2026 has also now been filed in the matter. He therefore submits that
no purpose would be served by subjecting the Applicant to custodial
interrogation.
8. Lastly, he points out that there are no antecedents or criminal cases pending
against the Applicant and that he is a student and has deep roots in the
society. He submits that the Applicant is willing to cooperate with the
investigation officer and ready to abide by any condition that may be
imposed by this Court.
Page 5 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 5th June 2026
9. ABA-1436-2026.doc
Nilesh Prajapati vs. State
9. On the other hand, learned APP, Mr. Ashok S. Gawai opposes the present
Application and submits that serious allegations have been levelled against
the Applicant and that the Sessions Court has already rejected the
Applicant’s prayer for anticipatory bail, giving cogent reasons.
10. He submits that the present Applicant has been named during the course of
the investigation and that the weapon allegedly used by him is yet to be
recovered. He adds that, as the Applicant and the Complainant reside in the
same locality, there exists a possibility of the Applicant tampering /
threatening the prosecution witnesses, and that the Applicant may threaten
or cause harm to the Complainant, and therefore, pre-arrest protection ought
not to be granted to the Applicant.
11. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions. At the
outset, it is required to be noted that the present Applicant is not named in
the FIR which clearly states that the Complainant was attacked by four
persons who came on two motorcycles. Moreover, save and except one of
the four said persons, who was described as an unknown person wearing a
black sando baniyan, all the other persons were known to the Complainant
and therefore, even named by him in the FIR. One of the said three
identified persons, namely, Mr. Akash Prajapati (accused no. 1) is the
younger brother of the Applicant who is stated to be known to the
Complainant since they reside in the same locality. In the Supplementary
Statement recorded by the Complainant, he has added the name of the
Page 6 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 5th June 2026
9. ABA-1436-2026.doc
Nilesh Prajapati vs. State
Applicant, and a result, he asserts that he was assaulted by five persons.
However, there is no mention of how the Applicant reached the spot of the
incident, considering that the other four accused arrived there on two bikes.
Moreover, since the Complainant admittedly knew the Applicant, there is no
satisfactory explanation, (save and except for a casual statement attributing
it to inadvertence), as to why his name was not included in the FIR in which
the assault was explained by the Complainant in detail, moreso when the
Applicant is stated to have hit the Complainant on the face with a steel
‘kada’.
12. Besides, the Chargesheet has now already been filed. The Applicant is a
young student aged 19 years and has no criminal antecedents. The APP has
not pointed out any specific circumstance demonstrating why custodial
interrogation of the Applicant is indispensable for further investigation. In
fact, three of the other accused persons have already secured bail.
Considering this, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not
warranted.
13. It is settled law, as held by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra1 that whilst considering a prayer for
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between ensuring a free, fair
and full investigation and protecting an accused from unnecessary
1 (2011) 1 SCC 694
Page 7 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 5th June 2026
9. ABA-1436-2026.doc
Nilesh Prajapati vs. State
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.
14. In the circumstances, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed
on the following terms :
a) In the event of arrest of the Applicant in C.R. No. 0155 of 2026, dated
10th February 2026, registered with Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai
for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5) 109(1), 118 (2), 352,
189(2), 189(4), 191(2) and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R./S/B.
Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
b) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of Kandivali
Police Station, Mumbai, on every alternate Saturday between 3.00
p.m. and 5.00 p.m. commencing from 13th June 2026 till 31st July
2026. Thereafter, as and when called upon by the Investigating
Officer, the Applicant shall ensure his presence before the
Investigating Officer.
c) The Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not
directly or indirectly tamper with the evidence nor influence any
witnesses, or any person connected with the case.
d) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the
trial Court.
15. In the event the Applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this
Page 8 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 5th June 2026
9. ABA-1436-2026.doc
Nilesh Prajapati vs. State
order, the anticipatory bail granted herein shall be liable to be cancelled.
16. It is also expressly clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited to the disposal of the present Application, and the Trial Court shall
proceed in the matter without being influenced by the observations made
hereinabove.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Amol
Page 9 of 9
-------------------------------------
Order dated 5th June 2026
Checking your session…