Bombay High Court

HARISH BHIM SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 9 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The court held that the anticipatory bail application must be dismissed as prima facie material exists against the applicant.

Summary

The applicant, Harish Bhim Singh, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with charges under Sections 287, 303(2) and 62 of the same Act and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The prosecution alleged that a large quantity of inflammable chemicals and oil was stored in a godown rented by the applicant, with 61 plastic cans and 31 barrels seized. The applicant contended that he was merely a tenant and that the only incriminating evidence was the statements of a co‑accused driver and the godown owner, asserting no direct involvement. The State argued that the statements linked the stored material to the applicant and that he was in possession of the premises at the time of the incident. The court examined the statements, found prima facie material against the applicant, and concluded that the criteria for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, given the prima facie evidence of possession of illegal inflammable material.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 287, 303(2), 482, 62
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 3, 7

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482
prima facie evidence
possession
inflammable material
Essential Commodities Act
criminal procedure
bail denial

Judgment

                                                 905-ABA-2321-2026.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2321 OF 2026


Harish Bhim Singh                                    …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent


Mr. Milind Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Shreeniwas Magar, for the
Applicant.
Mr. S. V. Walve, APP, for the Respondent-State.


                       CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :     9th SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-


1.       Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.



2.       This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking pre-arrest bail

in connection with C.R. No.64 of 2026 registered with Kamshet

Takve Police Station, Pune Rural, Pune, for the offences punishable

under Sections 287, 303(2) and 62 of the Bharatiya Nyaya




                                 Page 1
Sonali
                                                905-ABA-2321-2026.DOC




Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955.



3.       As per the prosecution case, a huge quantity of inflammable

material was stored in a godown by the Applicant. Approximately

61 plastic cans and 31 barrels were found. It was found that the

said plastic cans and barrels contain chemicals and oil.



4.       It is the submission of Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel

appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant is not involved in

the crime and only on the basis of the statements of one co-

accused-Mohammad Kitabullah Khan, who is the driver and Amol

Ashok Gaikhe, who is the owner of the said godown, the Applicant

is implicated in the crime. However, he submits that except these

statements, there is nothing on record to indicate that the

Applicant is connected with the crime. He submits that even if

statement dated 14th April 2026 (Page 106 of the Anticipatory Bail

Application) of the owner-Amol Ashok Gaikhe is seen, then also it

is clear that the Applicant was a tenant of the said godown about

one year back. He submits that although there are five antecedents

against the Applicant, out of which, in four cases, the Applicant has




                                 Page 2
Sonali
                                                 905-ABA-2321-2026.DOC




been released on anticipatory bail and one case is under Section

103 of the BNS. He submits that the material on record clearly

shows that the Applicant is not at all involved in the said crime.



5.       On the other hand, Mr. Walve, learned APP strongly opposes

the Anticipatory Bail Application. He submits that the statement of

the owner namely Amol Ashok Gaikhe shows that when the

incident took place, the Applicant was the tenant.



6.       Perusal of the record shows that the co-accused Mohammad

Kitabullah Khan, who is the driver and also looking after the said

godown has clearly stated that the said material namely chemicals

and oil are belonging to the present Applicant. The statement of

Amol Ashok Gaikhe, who is the owner of the said godown shows

that about one year back, he has given the said godown on rent to

the Applicant. The Applicant has paid the rent for a period of five

months and thereafter, the rent has not been paid. However, the

said statement clearly shows that when the incident took place, the

Applicant was still in the possession of the said godown. In the said

godown 61 plastics cans and 31 barrels were found containing

chemicals and oil.




                                Page 3
Sonali
                                                   905-ABA-2321-2026.DOC




7.       Thus, prima facie material is against the Applicant.



8.       Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory

bail.



9.       The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.




                                            [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                  Page 4
Sonali

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…