Bombay High Court

SAYED MUJAHID SAYED FAROOQUEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed as granting bail would be an abuse of process.

Summary

The applicant, Sayed Mujahid Sayed Farooque, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Food Safety and Standards Act after a police raid seized contraband gutka worth Rs. 14,02,405 from his premises. He argued that he had already been granted pre‑arrest bail in a related case and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State opposed, contending that the applicant owned the premises, a large quantity of contraband was found, and interrogation was essential to determine the source, especially since manufacturing of such contraband is prohibited in Maharashtra. The court examined the record, noted the applicant’s prior involvement in similar crimes, and found no indication of false implication but emphasized the need for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the court held that granting bail would amount to an abuse of process and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite prior similar offences and large seizure of contraband.
Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary in the present case.
Whether granting bail would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 123, 223, 274, 275 r/w 3(5)
Food Safety and Standards Act — s. 59

Subjects

anticipatory bail
contraband
gutka
Food Safety and Standards Act
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
custodial interrogation
abuse of process

Judgment

                                -1-
                                                      aba1539.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     24 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1539 OF 2026

Sayed Mujahid Sayed Farooque                   ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                       …..Respondent

Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State.

                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                              DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.     Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

0261/2026 registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, District

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under

Sectins 123, 223, 274, 275 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and

Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act.



2.    First Information Report reveals that secret information was

received by the concerned Police Station indicating that in the

premises of the present Applicant, huge quantity of contraband

gutka and pan masala are stored. Accordingly, the place was raided.

Contraband worth Rs. 14,02,405/- came to be seized.
                                 -2-
                                                      aba1539.26.odt

3.    Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that on the same day,

two difference offences came to be registered against the Applicant

and in respect of one of them, Applicant has been granted pre-arest

bail by the Sessions Court. It is his submission that having regard to

said fact, present application also deserves to be allowed. He further

submits that here in this case nothing is to be recovered at the

instance of the Applicant as such custodial interrogation of the

Applicant is not necessary.



4.    Learned APP opposed grant of any protection to the Applicant

by considering similar crime registered against him.        It is his

submission that Applicant is the owner of the premises from which

the contraband is seized.     He also drew attention of the Court to

registration of another crime against him wherein from the godown of

present Applicant, similar contraband was seized. He submits that

considering the huge quantity of contraband being found in the

premises of the Applicant, his custodial interrogation would be

necessary to ascertain from where the said contraband has been

obtained by him since manufacturing of said contraband is

prohibited in the State of Maharashtra.
                                -3-
                                                       aba1539.26.odt

5.    Perusal of record indicates that Applicant was earlier involved

in similar crime. Here in this case, huge quantity of contraband is

seized from the Applicant.   There is no reason to believe that the

Applicant is falsely implicated in this crime.    As far as custodial

interrogation of the Applicant is concerned, this Court finds

substance in the contention of learned APP. In such circumstances,

granting bail to a person who repeatedly commits such crime would

be abuse of process of law. Hence, application stands dismissed.



                                                 ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…