PRAMANAND NARAYAN TIMMEWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:23674




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     917 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 480 OF 2025

                                PRAMANAND NARAYAN TIMMEWAR
                                              VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
           Mr. Amol Narhari Kakade, Advocate for Applicant
           Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State

                                                       CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                       DATED   : 17th JUNE, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

           No.30/2025, dated 05.02.2025, registered with Osmanpura Police Station,

           Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (City), District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,

           for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 74, 333, 324(4), 329(1),

           352, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.


           2.    The First Information Report indicates that, on 04.02.2025 at about

           5:24 p.m., two unknown persons allegedly entered the office of the informant

           and caused damage to the property to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs. Be that as it

           may, the question that arises for consideration in the present application is

           whether the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for a proper

           and effective investigation of the crime.



           917 ABA 480.2025.odt                                                    1 of 6
3.    Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the First Information

Report indicates that two unknown persons had entered the office of the

informant and caused damage to the property. As such, the name of the

present applicant does not find place in the First Information Report.

According to him, the applicant had no reason or motive to commit the

offence alleged against him. It is further submitted that the liberty of the

applicant was protected by the grant of interim relief vide order dated

25.03.2025. Pursuant to the said order, the applicant has co-operated with the

investigation and has also handed over his mobile phone to the Investigating

Agency. It is his submission by referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case of Vinay Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in

SLP(Cri.) No. 20215/2025, that the Investigating Agency cannot insist upon

the accused incriminate himself and the cooperation with the investigation

does not extend to the violation of the constitutional right against self

incrimination. He submits that on the basis of statement of co-accused,

involvement of the applicant cannot be considered in this crime. He further

argues that the website of the department of Telecommunication indicates

that the IMEI number referred in CDR is invalid.


4.    Learned APP opposed the application by contending that though the

offence in question appears the causing damage of the property, during the



917 ABA 480.2025.odt                                                    2 of 6
investigation, the applicant has mislead the Investigating Agency by

surrendering different mobile phone than the one which was used during the

period of commission crime. In support of the said contention, she places

reliance upon the Call Detail Records (CDR), which indicate that the mobile

phone used at the relevant time reflected a different IMEI number, whereas

the mobile phone handed over by the applicant to the Investigating Officer

bears a different IMEI number. According to her, this circumstance indicates

that the applicant has not produced the mobile phone used during the

relevant period. She further submits that, even if the statement of the co-

accused is kept aside, there is independent material to show that the applicant

was in contact with the co-accused both prior to and on the date of the

incident. According to her, therefore, this is not a case where the prosecution

seeks to implicate the applicant solely on the basis of the statement of a co-

accused. Learned APP further submits that interim protection was granted to

the applicant subject to the condition that he would co-operate with the

investigation. According to her, by producing a different mobile phone, the

applicant has failed to comply with the said condition. She therefore contends

that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for recovery of the

mobile phone allegedly used during the relevant period. She also draws the

attention of the Court to approximately 35 WhatsApp calls exchanged




917 ABA 480.2025.odt                                                     3 of 6
between the applicant and the co-accused, out of which several call records

are stated to have been deleted. According to her, this material demonstrates

that, apart from the statement of the co-accused, there exists independent

evidence connecting the applicant with the crime in question.


5.    There cannot be dispute made with regard to the argument that in the

case like one in hand, there could not have been reason to reject the

anticipatory bail application since the applicant has admittedly not

participated in the actual incident. However, the matter become serious in

view of the fact that the applicant was directed to cooperate in the

investigation and on that condition, his liberty was protected. Prima facie,

there is material on record to indicate that the applicant and the co-accused

were in contact with each other and that the mobile handset used by the

applicant during the relevant period appears to be different from the one

produced before the Investigating Agency, having regard to the IMEI number

reflected in the Call Detail Records. Although the applicant has handed over a

mobile handset to the Investigating Agency, there is prima facie material to

show that the said handset bears a different IMEI number. Needless to say that

any such misrepresentation made by the applicant cannot be ignored lightly.

Even if it is accepted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in case of     Vinay Kumar Gupta (supra), that co-operation with the


917 ABA 480.2025.odt                                                    4 of 6
investigation does not extend to the surrender of the constitutional protection

against self-incrimination, no such protection can be claimed when the

Investigating Agency seeks recovery and seizure of a material object such as a

mobile handset. In the opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation of the

applicant appears necessary for the purpose of recovery of the mobile handset

allegedly used during the relevant period, which may contain material having

a bearing on the investigation. In that view of the matter, this Court finds

substance in the submissions advanced by the learned APP.


6.      Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and more

particularly in view of the conduct of the applicant in producing a mobile

handset different from the one allegedly used during the relevant period,

thereby prima facie misleading the Investigating Agency, this Court is of the

opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Such

interrogation cannot be effectively carried out under the protective umbrella

of the interim relief granted by this Court. Hence, application stands

dismissed.


7.      At this stage, learned Advocate for the applicant seeks continuation of

interim relief on the ground that he is protected from arrest from March,

2025.




917 ABA 480.2025.odt                                                     5 of 6
8.    Learned APP opposed the said request on the ground that the liberty of

the applicant has already remained protected for more than a year. However,

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this order shall remain

stayed for a period of four weeks from today.



                                                   ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)


ssp




917 ABA 480.2025.odt                                                    6 of 6