Bombay High Court
ABDULLATIF AMIRODDIN MUJAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that no change in circumstances existed and therefore the second anticipatory bail application must be dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Abdullatif Amiroddin Mujawar, filed a second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 0621 of 2024 alleging offences under IPC Sections 409 and 420. The first anticipatory bail application had been dismissed on the ground that the allegations of misappropriation of police‑collected cash were prima facie serious. The applicant claimed a change in circumstances based on a Right to Information Act, 2005 response showing some challans and alleged bank deposits, and relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Sakattar Singh v. State of Punjab. The respondent argued that no material change occurred and that the second application was an abuse of process. The court examined the RTI documents and the applicant’s submissions and found no factual or legal shift that would justify revisiting the earlier dismissal, consequently rejecting the second anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the second anticipatory bail application is maintainable in view of the earlier dismissal.
- Whether there has been any material change in facts or law justifying a fresh grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the applicant’s reliance on RTI documents and the Sakattar Singh judgment establishes a right to anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- change in circumstances
- abuse of process
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- RTI
- police clerk misappropriation
Judgment
33-ABA-458-2026 (CR).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 458 OF 2026
Abdullatif Amiroddin Mujawar … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
----
Mr. M. S. Mulla for the Applicant.
Mr. Nitin B. Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
-------
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 7th September 2026.
PER COURT :
1. Heard Mr. M.S. Mulla, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Nitin
Patil, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State.
2. By this Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is before this Court in this Second
Anticipatory Bail Application in connection with Crime No. 0621 of 2024,
dated 20th August 2024, registered at Sangola Police Station, District Solapur
Rural, for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
osk 1 of 6
33-ABA-458-2026 (CR).docx
3. Mr. Nitin Patil, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State, has objected to
the maintainability of this successive Anticipatory Bail Application before this
Court.
4. The Applicant was before this Court by Anticipatory Bail Application
No. 3106 of 2024 (First Anticipatory Bail Application). This Court, vide order
dated 22nd November 2024, dismissed the said Application on merits,
observing as follows:
“1. Heard, Mr. Thobde, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.
Shinde, learned APP for the respondent - Stare.
2. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with First
Information Report No.0621 of 2024, dated 20 th August, 2024,
registered at Police Station Sangola, District Solapur, for
offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC).
3. The informant in the present case is a Police Sub Inspector and
his statement shows that the allegation against the applicant is
that when he was working as a Nagadi Karkoon (Cashier) and
Muddemal Clerk at the aforesaid police station, cash amounts
concerning offences registered against accused persons under
Gambling Act were deposited with the applicant as the
Muddemal Clerk. The said amounts was supposed to be
deposited in the Bank by properly following the procedure and
generating challans. Verification of the record demonstrated
that between the period 2016 to 2020, when the applicant was
working in the said police station on the aforesaid post, such
amounts were not deposited in the Bank and even challans
were missing.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this could be
osk 2 of 6
33-ABA-458-2026 (CR).docx
a case, which could be sorted out by proper verification of the
records, as the applicant himself could find at least 2 challans,
copies of which are produced at Exhibit "C", to show that
amounts were deposited in the bank. It is further submitted
that, at worst, it could be said that there was dereliction of duty
on the part of the applicant as challans were not generated in
the context of the aforesaid amounts deposited with the
applicant as the Muddemal Clerk. It is submitted that therefore,
this court may show indulgence.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP submitted that this was a
clear case of involving cheating, as the applicant while working
as Muddemal Clerk had misappropriated amounts in the
aforesaid manner.
6. This Court has carefully perused the statement of the
informant, leading to registration of the FIR. Sufficient details
are given as regards the amounts that were deposited from time
to time with the applicant as the Nagadi Karkoon and
Muddemal Clerk, when he was working in the said police
station. Upon verification of the record, the informant found
that cash amounts that were supposed to be deposited in the
bank were not so deposited and even challans could not be
located. These are serious allegations, particularly in the
context of a Police Personnel, who as the Muddemal Clerk was
handling cash concerning certain offences registered against
persons under the Gambling Act. The applicant was expected to
act with responsibility and instead of doing so, prima facie, it
appears that amounts were not deposited in the bank and they
were retained by the applicant.
7. No case is made out for granting anticipatory bail. The
application is dismissed.”
5. Mr. M.S. Mulla, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that a
second Anticipatory Bail Application is maintainable in the event of a change
osk 3 of 6
33-ABA-458-2026 (CR).docx
in circumstances. He submits that after dismissal of Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 3106 of 2024 by this Court on 22nd November 2024, the
Applicant obtained information under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, from the Investigating Officer. He submits that the
said document is produced at page No. 35 of the Application paper-book.
Relying upon the said document, he submits that there is a change in
circumstances which would warrant filing of the second Anticipatory Bail
Application and grant of it. He relies on the decision of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in Sakattar Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab1.
6. Mr. Nitin Patil, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents, submits that there
has been no change in any circumstance and therefore, this second
Application, being an abuse of process of law, must be dismissed. He submits
that the offence in Crime No. 0621 of 2024 is serious, as noted by this Court
in its order dated 22 nd November 2024. He further submits that the Applicant
has evaded investigation in Crime No. 0621 of 2024 since 22 nd November
2024 and is absconding.
7. Perused the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates.
8. The Applicant, for the second time, is before this Court seeking pre-
arrest bail. This Application is premised on a change in circumstances. In
1 CRM-M-43991-2026, decided on 10.08.2026
osk 4 of 6
33-ABA-458-2026 (CR).docx
support thereof, Mr. M.S. Mulla, learned Advocate for the Applicant, has
relied on paragraphs 6 and 7 of the memo of this Application, which are
reproduced verbatim:-
“6. The Applicant states that thereafter Applicant made application to
the concerned Sangola Police Station under Right to Information
Act and the concerned police station has given detail information
regarding alleged challans. Further if perusing the alleged challans
and RTI report, the Applicant deposited some of the alleged
amount to the Bank. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit D is
the copy of the detail report of the some of challans received on
17.12.2024.
7. The Applicant states that the Applicant received on documents
dated 12.09.2024 which is seems that the Investigation Officer
asking information regarding alleged challans from the State Bank
of India, Branch Sangola. First Information report has been lodged
on 20.08.2024 by alleging that the Applicant misappropriated
funds of Muddemal and he is seeking information from the Bank on
12.09.2024. It is clearly seems that without conducting preliminary
inquiry, directly lodged FIR against the Applicant. Hereto annexed
and marked as Exhibit E is the copy of the letter dated 12.09.2024
of the Sangola Police Sation.”
9. Neither the contents of paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Application, nor the
document at page 35 of the paper book, nor the submissions of Mr. M.S.
Mulla, learned Advocate for the Applicant, indicate any change in the fact
situation or in the law.
osk 5 of 6
33-ABA-458-2026 (CR).docx
10. Paragraph No. 4 of the Order dated 22 nd November 2024, passed by
this Court, sets out the Applicant's stand in Crime No. 0621 of 2024. The
contentions advanced today by Mr. M.S. Mulla, learned Advocate for the
Applicant in this second Anticipatory Application, are new arguments and
twists on the same facts.
11. The contentions of Mr. M.S. Mulla, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
do not suggest that the findings in the Order dated 22 nd November 2024 in
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3106 of 2024 can be said to have become
absolute.
12. Thus, no case is made out for the grant of anticipatory bail. This
Application is without merit. Accordingly, Anticipatory Bail Application No.
458 of 2026 is rejected.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.09.08
17:18:12
+0530
osk 6 of 6
Checking your session…