Bombay High Court

UMAR HAJI ISMAIL ZIYAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the anticipatory bail application must be dismissed as the evidence does not establish a reliable alibi and the nature of the offence warrants denial of bail.

Summary

The applicant sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest for offences under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 351, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to an alleged assault with an axe and iron rod on 7 July 2026. The applicant claimed false implication, relying on hotel photographs to establish an alibi and arguing that the parties were at loggerheads. The State contested the alibi, noting that the investigating officer and a panch of witnesses had inspected the hotel, found the CCTV footage unavailable and that the hotel cameras were non‑functional, and presented witness statements linking the applicant to the crime. The court observed that the incident was witnessed by at least four persons, involved serious injury and a weapon, and that the alibi was not substantiated by reliable material. Consequently, the court found no ground to grant pre‑arrest bail and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant’s alibi, supported by hotel photographs, is sufficient to merit anticipatory bail.
Whether the claim of false implication is credible in view of the evidence collected.
Whether the seriousness of the assault and involvement of weapons preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351, 351(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
alibi
false implication
assault with weapon
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42088
933-ABA-1439-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

933 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1439 OF 2026

Mohammad Javeed Gulam Mohammad
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Mr. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondents

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3361 OF 2026 IN ABA/1439/2026

Umar Haji Ismail Ziya
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Mr. G. K. Muneshwar, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondents
CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE :SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
P. C. :

1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No.

506/2026 registered with Police Station Nanalpeth, District Parbhani for the

offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 351, 351(2)

read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. First information report indicates that on 07.07.2026 at about

03.30 pm an incident had occurred in which present Applicant and co-

accused said to have caused assault on informant. There is allegation with

regard to causing of the said assault with axe and iron rod.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that this is a case of

Page 1 of 3
933-ABA-1439-2026.odt

false implication. In order to support said submissions, he drew attention of

the Court to the FIR lodged by Khamisa Salman Abed Gulam Mohammad

indicating that some incident had occurred on that day, however, presence

of the Applicant at the spot is not seen. He relied upon the photographs of

his hotel indicating that on or around at the time of occurrence of the aid

incident, he was present in the hotel. He further submits that admittedly

parties are at inimical terms, as such, false implication exists. It is his

submission that having regard to the said fact liberty of the Applicant

deserves to be protected.

4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant opposed

application. Learned APP submits that since submission was made on the

last date of hearing with regard to plea of alibi by the Applicant,

investigating officer along with panch witnesses visited the hotel of the

Applicant in order to find out as to whether there is any substance in the

said plea. He drew attention of the Court to the panchnama recorded

indicating that the CCTV footage of the relevant day is not available. He

further drew attention of the Court to the fact that all CCTV cameras

installed in the said hotel are not in working condition. It is his submission

that there are statements of witnesses indicating involvement of the

Applicant in this crime and as such, owing to the nature of crime, use of

weapon, this is not the case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Page 2 of 3
933-ABA-1439-2026.odt

5. Prima facie perusal of the FIR indicates that in respect of the

same incident occurred on 07.07.2026, two different reports came to be

lodged. There is also no dispute about the fact that the parties are at logger

head. Needless to say that the previous disputes on one hand becomes

reason for false implication so also in certain cases it becomes reason for

commission of crime. Herein this case, prima facie perusal of the record

indicates that the incident in question has been witnessed by not less than

four witnesses. The use of weapons is seen in the crime. The informant

sustained serious injuries. Even if accepting the contention of the learned

Counsel for the Applicant that for some time on that day he was present in

the hotel, as per the panchnama drawn in presence of the panch witnesses,

the spot of the incident is away at a minute distance from the said hotel. It is

thus practically possible for the Applicant to leave hotel and to be present on

the spot. Since there is no conclusive/reliable material on record to accept

plea of alibi, this Court finds no reason to discard this evidence collected

during the course of investigation. As such, having regard to the nature of

offence, involvement of the weapon, requirement of recovery of the same,

no case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. In view of the above, Application stands dismissed.

7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani

Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…