Bombay High Court

GOUS ALIAS TAGO RAFIK SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The anticipatory bail application is allowed, subject to the conditions of the interim order, as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case justifying denial.

Summary

Gous alias Tago Rafik Shaikh applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 118(2), 118(1), 324(4), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging he assaulted an informant with a wooden stick, stole his phone and threatened him during a mayoral election. The FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident, which the applicant argued indicated political rivalry and over‑implication. The State opposed bail, relying on statements recorded during investigation and the informant’s injury certificate. The Court observed that the two‑day delay was relevant but noted that the injury certificate showed only simple injuries and there was no evidence of non‑cooperation by the applicant. Consequently, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to the conditions of the interim order dated 18.03.2026, except for Clause (i).

Issues considered

Whether the two‑day delay in lodging the FIR and alleged political rivalry justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Whether the nature of the injuries and the applicant's cooperation with the investigation affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Whether the allegations under the specified sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita warrant denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 118(1), 118(2), 324(4), 351(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
political rivalry
FIR delay
assault
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
injury certificate
cooperation with investigation
bail conditions

Judgment

                                  -1-
                                                         aba280.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     978 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 280 OF 2026

Gous Alias Tago Rafik Shaikh                      ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                          …..Respondent

Mr. S. Y. Mahajan, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for the State.

                               CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                               DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026.
PER COURT :


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

0027/2026     registered   with   Paranda    Police   Station,   District

Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(2), 118(1),

324(4), 352, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



2.    The case of the prosecution is that the informant Kalim Attaur

Raheman Mujawar, resident         of Somwar Galli, Paranda, Dist.

Dharashiv has lodged the complaint with Paranda Police Station

alleging that on 14.01.2026 at about 9.30 am, at Shivratna Hotel on

Kurduwadi road, accused-applicant Gaus @ Tago Mukhtar Shaikh

beat the informant on his legs and his right wrist with a wooden stick

and caused serious injuries on the ground of spreading/throwing
                                  -2-
                                                          aba280.26.odt

Gulal during the election of Mayor. He also took his mobile phone

and broke it, abused him and threatened to kill him.



3.    Learned Counsel for applicant submits that the allegation in

the First Information Report itself indicates that there are political

disputes and rivalries between the parties. It is his submission that

there is delay of two days in lodging of the report as the alleged

incident had occurred on 14.01.2026 and the report came to be

lodged on 16.01.2026. It is his submission that in any case, it is a

case of over implication.      According to him, the Applicant has

cooperated in the investigation and as such, there is no reason not to

confirm the interim relief.



4.    Learned APP opposed the application by drawing attention of

the Court to the statements recorded during the course of

investigation so also the injury certificate of the informant.



5.    Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there is delay of

2 days in lodging of the report.     In the light of admitted political

rivalry between the parties, delay caused in lodging report becomes

relevant.   Further, allegations made against the Applicant are not
                                -3-
                                                       aba280.26.odt

supported by injury certificate which shows causing of two simple

injuries to the informant. Applicant was directed to appear before the

Investigating Officer. There is no grievance made by the Investigating

Officer about non-cooperation in the investigation by the Applicant.

Hence, application stands allowed in terms of the interim order dated

18.03.2026 except Clause No. (i).



                                                ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…