Bombay High Court
JAHANGEER KAMARALI ANSARI AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that there was prima facie substance to the contention that the incident was accidental and the applicants were not present, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail.
Summary
The applicants, Jahangeer Kamarali Ansari and Razi Ahmad Khan, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a fire incident at a godown that resulted in the death of a worker, Irfan Shaikh. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, who had taken the godown on rent, were involved in the incident and filed an FIR against them. The applicants contended they were not present at the scene, that the fire was accidental, and offered a compensation of Rs.7,00,000 to the victim's family. The court observed that the prosecution record indicated the applicants were not present and found prima facie substance to the claim of accident, thereby justifying anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicants on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 each and imposed standard conditions, disposing of the anticipatory bail application in their favour.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the offences alleged under Sections 105, 287, 326 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the applicants' alleged non‑presence at the scene and the accidental nature of the fire negate the grounds for arrest.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 105, 287, 326, 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- fire accident
- criminal liability
- compensation
- bail conditions
Judgment
04-ABA-2497-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARJUN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2497 OF 2026
VITTHAL 1. Jahangeer Kamarali Ansari …Applicants
KUDHEKAR
2. Razi Ahmad Khan
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL Versus
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.10.03 The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
19:55:33 +0530
Mr. Imtiyaz S. Shaikh a/w Saipan D. Shaikh & Hemant P. Ingale,
for the Applicants.
Mr. S. V. Walve, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Kajal Nishad a/w Roshni Vishwakarma, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 01 OCTOBER 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicants, Mr. Walve, learned APP, for the Respondent-State of
Maharashtra and Ms. Kajal Nishad, learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2.
2. By this Anticipatory Bail Application filed under Section 482
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicants
are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.559 of 2026
registered with the Kondhwa Police Station, Pune City, for the
offences punishable under Sections 105, 287, 326 and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Page 1
Arjun
04-ABA-2497-2026.DOC
3. The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.2 of the
Order dated 25th August 2026 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune in Bail Application No.3953 of 2026, which
reads as under:
“2. Prosecution story in short :
There are allegations in the FIR that on
17/07/2026 in the night at 9:00 pm at godown situated
in Firdose Apartment at Juned Chowk, S.No.5,
Ashrafnagar, Kondhwa wherein the work of wielding of
iron rack for storing oil paint and other material was
going on at that time there was a fire in this godown and
as there was storage of explosive substances such as
thinner, hardner, oil paint, turpentine and other plastic
material due to which there was huge fire and as the
shutter of godown was closed Mr. Irfan Shaikh who was
doing the wielding work inside the godown died due to
severe burn injuries. The applicant and co-accused
Jehangir Ansari falsely told the fire fighter employees
that nobody is there in the godown. So, they tried only to
control the fire which was near the shutter, but as Irfan
Shaikh was inside he could not be saved and he
succumbed to burn injuries. Therefore, as the present
applicant had taken this godown on rent and as he had
engaged Irfan Shaikh for work so, the FIR is filed against
him and co-accused Razi Khan who is the owner of the
godown”
4. As per the prosecution case, the First Informant’s husband
was doing welding work inside a godown of the Applicants where
paint material was stored. Since suddenly fire took place, the
husband of the First Informant / Respondent No.2 passed away.
Page 2
Arjun
04-ABA-2497-2026.DOC
5. Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants,
submits that the Applicants were not involved in the crime. He
submits that the Applicants were not present even at the spot of
the incident. He further submits that the incident is an accident.
However, he submits that as the First Informant has lost her
husband, the Applicants are ready and willing to pay an amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- to compensate her and, accordingly, three Demand
Drafts aggregating to Rs. 7,00,000/- i.e. two of Rs.2,00,000/- each
and one of Rs.3,00,000/- have been handed over to Respondent
No.2. Ms. Kajal Nishad, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2 confirms the said position.
6. Perusal of the record shows that even as per the prosecution
case the Applicants were not present at the spot when the incident
in question took place.
7. Prima facie, there is substance in the contention raised by
learned Counsel for the Applicants that the incident is of accident.
8. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, case is made out
for grant of anticipatory bail.
Page 3
Arjun
04-ABA-2497-2026.DOC
9. In view thereof, the following Order is passed:
ORDER
(a) In the event of arrest of Applicant No.1 - Jahangeer
Kamarali Ansari and Applicant No.2 - Razi Ahmad
Khan in connection with CR No.559 of 2026
registered with the Kondhwa Police Station, Pune City,
the Applicants are directed to be released on bail on
their furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
each with one or two solvent sureties each in the like
amount.
(b) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police
Station, as and when necessary and shall cooperate
with the investigation.
(c) The Applicants shall furnish their cell phone numbers
and residential addresses to the Investigating Officer
and shall keep the same updated, in case of any
change thereto.
(d) The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat, or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
Page 4
Arjun
04-ABA-2497-2026.DOC
such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or
to any Police personnel.
(e) The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not contact or influence the
Complainant or any witness in any manner.
10. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 5
Arjun
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.