Bombay High Court
PARVEZ RAFIQUE CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED
Holding
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing the applicant to cooperate with the investigation and imposing specific conditions.
Summary
Parvez Rafique Chaudhary applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a FIR alleging his presence during a quarrel that resulted in injury to a complainant and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the Maharashtra Police Act. The applicant contended that he did not partake in the assault and was elsewhere at the time, asserting that the allegations against him were solely based on his alleged presence. The State argued that his presence indicated common intention with the other accused and highlighted his prior criminal antecedents. The Court observed that the FIR only implicated the applicant by presence, the weapon was recovered from co‑accused, and therefore prima facie there was no direct participation warranting arrest. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail with a cash bond, conditions of regular police station attendance, non‑contact with witnesses, and cooperation with the investigation, noting that breach would lead to bail cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the accused is alleged only to have been present at the scene of the offence without direct participation.
- Whether the presence of the accused, coupled with prior criminal antecedents, suffices to deny bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.
- Whether the applicant must be arrested despite lack of specific allegations of participation.
- What conditions may be imposed on anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 4
- Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 351(2), 352
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- presence at scene
- common intention
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedents
- BNSS
- Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- Maharashtra Police Act
Judgment
1-ABA-2757-2026.ODT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2757 OF 2026
Parvez Rafique Chaudhary …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Adv. Rehana Begum, for Applicant.
Mrs. Megha S. Bajoria, A.P. P., for Respondent – State.
PSI Sudhir A. More, Chithalsar Police Station, Thane City,
is present.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 6TH OCTOBER 2026
P. C:-
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned
APP for respondent – State.
2. The applicant has filed the instant application under
Section 482 of The Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for short, “BNSS”), for seeking pre-arrest bail in connection
with Crime No. 268 of 2026 dated 22.08.2026 registered with
Chithalsar Police Station, Manpada, Thane City, for the offence
punishable under Sections 109(1), 189(1) 189(2), 190, 191(2),
351(2), 352 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with
Page 1 of 5
th
6 October 2026
1-ABA-2757-2026.ODT
Sections 4 and 25 of The Arms Act, 1959 read with Sections
37(1) and 135 of The Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
3. The FIR is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the
complainant alleging that on 21.08.2026 at about 22:30 hours
there was a quarrel in between the informant and the group of
persons including this applicant and at that time, one of the
accused person has attacked on the vehicle of the informant and
at that time caused injury to the complainant’s nose. It is alleged
that this applicant was present on the spot along with the other
accused persons and on the basis of these allegations, offence
came to be registered against seven known persons and three-
four unknown persons.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that although
offence is registered against the applicant, there are no
allegations of direct attack by this applicant. She submits that
the allegations of attack causing injury to the informant are
attributed to the other accused persons and name of this
applicant is falsely implicated. She also submits that at the
relevant time, the applicant was present at some other place.
Page 2 of 5
th
6 October 2026
1-ABA-2757-2026.ODT
5. The application is opposed by the learned APP for
respondent – State who has pointed that there are allegations
about presence of the applicant on the spot and although the
attack is allegedly done by the other accused persons, the
presence of this applicant shows that all the accused have acted
with common intention. She also submits that there are four
criminal antecedents against this applicant and in view of this
his presence along with other accused persons shows his
connection with the offence in question
6. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that there are allegations
about presence of this applicant however, the allegations about
the assault on the vehicle and assault for causing injuries on the
nose of the informant are attributed to some other unknown
person. It has to be noted that the weapon of offence is already
recovered from the other co-accused as submitted by the
learned APP. As such, considering the fact that prima facie the
applicant is implicated only on account of his presence at the
time of incidence, the applicant needs to be directed to join the
investigation. The presence of applicant can be secured by
directing him to attend the police station and his custodial
interrogation need not be insisted upon.
Page 3 of 5
th
6 October 2026
1-ABA-2757-2026.ODT
7. Hence, I pass following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest of this applicant in
connection with Crime No. 268 of 2026
registered with Chithalsar Police Station,
Thane City, for the offence punishable under
Sections 109(1), 189(1) 189(2), 190, 191(2),
351(2), 352 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 read with Sections 4 and 25 of The Arms
Act, 1959 read with Sections 37(1), 135 of
The Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, he be
released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) with one solvent surety of the like
amount.
(iii) The applicant is directed to attend the Police
Station on every Friday in between 10:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m. for a period of four weeks and
thereafter as and when called upon by the
investigating agency.
(iv) The applicant shall not contact the informant
or any other prosecution witnesses, in any
manner.
Page 4 of 5
th
6 October 2026
1-ABA-2757-2026.ODT
(v) The applicant is directed to extend co-
operation during investigation and trial.
(vi) Breach of any of these conditions, shall be a
ground for cancellation of the bail.
8. Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in above
terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
VDMokal/-
Page 5 of 5
th
6 October 2026
Checking your session…