Bombay High Court

MOHAMMED ALI MEMONversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 8 April 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: R N LADDHA

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to a cash bond, sureties and conditions to prevent tampering of evidence or influencing witnesses.

Summary

The applicant, Mohammed Ali Memon, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.91/2026 alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant participated in an unlawful assembly and assaulted an informant, while the defence contended that he was merely present and falsely implicated. The court examined the FIR, CCTV footage, and noted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version, including that the footage did not show the applicant assaulting the informant and that the mobile phone was handed to him by a witness. It also observed that no recovery was pending from the applicant, the investigation was near completion, and co‑accused had already been bailed. Balancing the prosecution’s concern of evidence tampering against the lack of substantive grounds for arrest, the court exercised its discretion to grant anticipatory bail with a cash bond, sureties, and conditions to prevent tampering or witness influence.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the material on record justifies arrest in view of the alleged offences.
Whether the prosecution’s concerns about evidence tampering can be mitigated by imposing conditions on bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 117(2), 119(2), 126(2), 189(1), 189(2), 190, 356(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
pre‑arrest bail
unlawful assembly
assault
evidence tampering
bail conditions
criminal procedure

Judgment

Digitally signed
by CHITRA
SANJAY
CHITRA SONAWANE
SANJAY Date:
SONAWANE 2026.04.08
18:40:00
+0530

Chitra Sonawane. 30-ABA-918-2026.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Anticipatory Bail Application No.918 of 2026

Mohammed Ali Memon,
Age-38 yrs., Occ: Teacher,
R/o. 68, Raza Manzil, 2nd Floor,
Bangalpura, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane. … Applicant.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra
(Through Bhoiwada Police Station,
Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane) … Respondent
----
Ms Anita Bhaktwani, for the applicant.
Mr Mayur Sonavane, APP, for the respondent/ State.
Sr.PI Ashok Ratnaparkhi, Bhoiwada Police Station, Bhiwandi,
Thane.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 8 April 2026.
P.C.:

By the present application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest
bail in connection with CR No.91 of 2026, registered at
Bhoiwada Police Station, Thane, for offences punishable under
Sections 119(2), 117(2), 115(2), 126(2), 189(1), 189(2), 190
and 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Page 1 of 5
__________________________________________________

8 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 30-ABA-918-2026.docx

2. The prosecution alleges that on 23 February 2026,
motivated by prior disputes, the applicant and the co-accused
formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the informant. In
the course of the incident, Firoz is alleged to have slapped the
informant, while Kasif allegedly abused him verbally and
assaulted him with kicks. The applicant, along with Niyaz and
an unidentified individual, is alleged to have assaulted the
informant with fist and kick blows. It is further alleged that,
during the course of the altercation, an unidentified person
attired in a yellow T-shirt and blue jeans removed the
informant’s mobile phone and cash amounting to Rs.1,500/-
from his pocket. As a consequence of the incident, the
informant sustained injuries.

3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant,
asserting the applicant’s innocence, contends that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The FIR is
manifestly vexatious in nature, and the applicant was merely
present at the scene without any participation in, or instigation
of, the alleged assault or altercation. It is further submitted that
the applicant had visited the premises solely in connection with
his personal affairs and bears no nexus whatsoever with the
alleged incident. The applicant has no criminal antecedents,
and there is nothing to be recovered or discovered at the

Page 2 of 5
__________________________________________________

8 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 30-ABA-918-2026.docx

applicant’s behest. The learned Counsel further submits that the
applicant is willing to extend full cooperation to the
investigating agency and shall abide by any conditions that this
Court may deem appropriate to impose.

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State, opposes the
applicant’s request. He submits that the applicant and the co-
accused, in furtherance of their common intention, verbally
abused and assaulted the informant. The allegations are of a
serious nature. Although the learned APP submits that there is
nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant, he
raises concerns about potential evidence tampering and witness
influence if the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail.

5. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival
contentions canvassed across the Bar and perused the records.

6. Upon a perusal of the FIR, it prima facie appears that the
allegations against the applicant are confined to the alleged act
of assault upon the informant by means of fist and kick blows,
without the use of any weapon. The CCTV footage
panchanama, however, does not depict the applicant as having
participated in the alleged assault. It merely shows that
subsequent to the alleged assault, the applicant, along with the

Page 3 of 5
__________________________________________________

8 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 30-ABA-918-2026.docx

co-accused, was running behind the informant. The footage
further reveals that the informant’s mobile phone was handed
over to the present applicant by one witness, Abdulla. This
version stands at variance with the prosecution’s narrative,
which asserts that the mobile phone was forcibly taken by the
accused and later found with the informant’s daughter. Such
inconsistency casts doubt upon the prosecution’s account of
events. It is further an admitted position that no recovery or
discovery is pending from the applicant, and the investigation is
at an advanced stage of completion. Moreover, the co-accused
have already been granted bail. The apprehensions expressed by
the prosecution regarding possible tampering with evidence or
influencing of witnesses can be addressed by imposing suitable
conditions upon the applicant.

7. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, this
Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the
applicant. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) In the event of the applicant’s arrest in
connection with CR No.91 of 2026,
registered at Bhoiwada Police Station,
Thane, he shall be released on bail upon
executing a PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- and

Page 4 of 5
__________________________________________________

8 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 30-ABA-918-2026.docx

furnishing one or more sureties in the like
amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the
concerned Police Station as and when
required.
(iii) The applicant, himself or through any
other person, shall not tamper with the
evidence or influence witnesses.

8. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

[R.N. Laddha, J.]

Page 5 of 5
__________________________________________________

8 April 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…