Bombay High Court
ALIM RAHIM SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
In the absence of any evidence connecting the applicant to the crime, anticipatory bail is warranted and prior antecedents are irrelevant.
Summary
Alim Rahim Shah applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving the seizure of large quantities of contraband gutkha. The FIR alleged his involvement based solely on a co-accused's statement, with no other evidence linking him to the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Food Safety and Standards Act. Shah argued that the co-accused's statement lacked evidentiary value and that, absent any further proof, his liberty should be protected despite alleged criminal antecedents. The State contended that the seriousness of the crime and the quantity seized justified denial of bail. The Court found that no additional evidence connected Shah to the crime, rendering his antecedents irrelevant, and consequently granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions. Shah was ordered to furnish a bond, avoid contacting witnesses, and cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only link to the accused is a co-accused's statement without corroborating evidence.
- Whether the accused's prior criminal antecedents are relevant in the absence of substantive evidence of involvement.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and quantity of contraband seized justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 123, 223, 274, 275 r/w 3(5)
- Food Safety and Standards Act — s. 26(2), 26(2)(a), 27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), 59
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- co-accused statement
- evidentiary value
- contraband gutkha
- Food Safety and Standards Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:27448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 339 OF 2026
ALIM RAHIM SHAH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
…
Mr. Sharad S. Solanke, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A. V. Lawate, APP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 10th JULY, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime
No.0060/2025, registered with Rahata Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for
the offences punishable under Sections, 123, 223, 274, 275 r/w 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 26(2), 26(2)(a), 27(3)(d), 27(3)
(e) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
2. The First Information Report indicates that a raid was conducted in
which a considerably huge quantity of contraband gutkha was seized from the
co-accused. On the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the prosecution
seeks to implicate the present applicant in the crime. The applicant is alleged
to be a supplier of the contraband gutkha.
ABA 339.2026.odt 1 of 3
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that, except for the alleged
statement of the co-accused, there is no evidence to connect the applicant
with the crime. It is further argued that the statement of the co-accused has
no evidentiary value and, in the absence of any other connecting evidence, the
involvement of the applicant in the crime cannot be presumed. It is further
argued that though antecedents are alleged against the applicant, in the
absence of any evidence showing his involvement in the crime, his liberty
deserves to be protected.
4. Learned APP opposed the grant of relief to the applicant by citing the
seriousness of the crime as well as the quantity of contraband seized at the
instance of the co-accused. It is his submission that the statement of the co-
accused may not be relevant at the trial; however, it can be considered by the
Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. He submits that the
applicant has criminal antecedents and, therefore, the application deserves to
be rejected.
5. Prima facie, a perusal of the record indicates that the contraband
gutkha was seized from the co-accused. No doubt, the statement of the co-
accused would be relevant for the purpose of further investigation. However,
during the course of investigation, no further evidence has been collected
against the present applicant showing any connection between the applicant
ABA 339.2026.odt 2 of 3
and the co-accused. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held, at
this stage, that the applicant is connected with the crime in question. Once it
is so held, the antecedents of the applicant become irrelevant. Hence, the
order:
ORDER
(i) Application is allowed.
(ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with
Crime No.0060/2025, registered with Rahata Police Station,
District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under
Sections, 123, 223, 274, 275 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita and under Sections 26(2), 26(2)(a), 27(3)(d), 27(3)
(e) and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, he shall be
released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount.
(iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and
when called by the Investigating Officer.
(iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(vi) He further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.
6. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
ABA 339.2026.odt 3 of 3
Checking your session…