Bombay High Court
IMTIYAZ AHMED RIYAZ AHMED AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicants subject to conditions, holding that the allegations do not preclude bail at the prima facie stage.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for two accused who were charged with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the accused had been simultaneously employed in two schools, leading to claims of salary entitlement and alleged fabrication of muster rolls. The defence produced resignation letters and appointment orders showing that the accused had resigned from the earlier school and, in one case, worked only at a night school, thereby refuting the prosecution’s claim. The Court held that the material on record was insufficient to deny bail and that the alleged issues were matters for trial, not bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail to both accused subject to strict conditions, emphasizing that the order was limited to bail and not a determination on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged dual employment and alleged fabrication of records justify denial of bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.
- Whether the prima facie evidence presented is sufficient to deny bail pending trial.
- Whether the accused's salary situation is relevant to the bail determination.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Subjects
- bail
- dual employment
- fabricated records
- criminal procedure
- BNSS
- BNS
- prima facie
- conditions of bail
Judgment
35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1355 OF 2026
1. Imtiyaz Ahmed Riyaz Ahmed;
2. Aafique Anjum Ashfaque Ahmad;
3. Faheem Ahmad Iqbal Ahmad; and
4. Shaikh Arif Ibrahim .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Javed Patel and Mr.
Parth H. Zaveri, Advocates i/by Momin Musaddique Ahmed for
Applicants.
Ms. Mankuwar M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Sandeev B. Deore, Advocate appearing through video
conferencing a/w. Ms. Suchita J. Pawar and Mr. Aditya S. Deore,
Advocates for Respondent No.3.
PI – Mr. Dattatrya Choudhari, EOW, Nashik Rural present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate for Applicants;
Ms. Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Deore,
learned Advocate appearing through video conferencing for
Respondent No.3.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail
in connection with C.R.No.181 of 2025 registered with Pawarwadi
Police Station, District Nashik for the offences punishable under
1 of 7
35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc
Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 340(2) and of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).
3. Accused No.3 and Accused No.5 who are arraigned as
Applicant Nos.2 and 4 in present Bail Application No.1355 of 2026 are
before the Court. Pursuant to directions contained in the order dated
24.08.2026, the same order stands duly complied with. The
prosecution has filed a detailed Affidavit as per directions contained in
paragraph No.6 of the order.
4. I have heard Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of Applicants and Ms. Deshmukh, learned Additional PP
appearing on behalf of the State and its functionaries. Both of them
have argued the present matter gracefully before the Court and
answered all the queries put by the Court. The Court appreciates the
conduct of both learned Senior Advocates in conducting this matter at
the bar.
5. At the outset, it is seen that insofar as Accused No.3 is
concerned, he has been appointed on 02.09.2021 and his appointment
has been approved by the Education Officer on 29.09.2024. The case
of the prosecution qua this Applicant is that he was working in another
school simultaneously which was known as Jamhoor High School. The
material which is placed on record by Applicant shows that he had
infact resigned from that school on 30.08.2021 and his resignation
2 of 7
35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc
letter was accepted by the said school. Such documentary evidence is
appended at page Nos.193 and 194 of the Application. The prosecution
has not made any investigation in that regard. However, the case of
the prosecution vehemently argued by Ms. Deshmukh is to the effect
that Applicant accused person had worked in two schools
simultaneously and therefore he would not be entitled to receive salary
from two different schools and therefore he should be denied bail.
6. Insofar as the issue regarding Applicant's resignation letter is
concerned, that has not been investigated. According to Ms.
Deshmukh, the case of prosecution is based on the statements of the
Headmaster which was recorded and the muster roll which the
prosecution has in all fairness placed before the Court to show that
during the contentious period Applicant accused had infact worked in
the present school.
7. Insofar as the prima facie stage for bail is concerned, the
aforesaid material is good enough for the Court to decide the present
Application. Needless to state that the complicity of the Applicant in
the crime as also the case of the prosecution to the extent that the
muster roll has been fabricated and there is fabrication of record, can
undoubtedly be proved at the time of trial.
8. Ms. Deshmukh has also argued the fact that it is incongruous
for an Aapplicant to remain salaryless for a substantial period of time.
3 of 7
35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc
However, for the consideration of bail that may not be relevant for me
since it would be a matter of evidence. In that view of the matter,
Applicant No.2 namely Accused No.3 has made out a case for grant of
bail.
9. Insofar as Accused No.5 who is Applicant No.4 before me is
concerned, the record shows that on 02.08.2019, he was appointed
and his approval was granted on 16.07.2024. Both these documents
are appended at page Nos.308 and 224 of the Application. The muster
roll of the said Applicant has been produced by the prosecution in all
fairness before the Court in the additional Affidavit which prima facie
shows that during the contentious period, he was infact working in the
present school. However, the prosecution case as argued by Ms.
Deshmukh is that he has simultaneously worked in another school, but
that case is prima facie refuted on the basis of material evidence placed
on record to show that the second school where the Applicant was
employed namely Crescent School between 10.07.2019 to 31.03.2020
was a night school where the Applicant was offering, giving his services
from 08:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Though Ms. Deshmukh would otherwise
argue that Crescent School also functioned during the day, however,
the case of Applicant is prima facie clear about he having served in the
night school. Investigation in that regard ought to have been made in
order to refute the case of the Applicant. That not having been made,
the benefit of doubt for the purpose of grant of bail will have to be
4 of 7
35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc
given to the Applicant concerned. Hence, Applicant No.4 namely
Accused No.5 has made out a case for grant of bail.
10. One of the important strong circumstances argued by Ms.
Deshmukh is that insofar as the register which has been produced by
the prosecution is concerned, her instructions are that the said register
is also forged and fabricated document. This submission will have to be
accepted with a lot of circumspect only because it is not the signature
of the accused persons appearing on the said register alone, but it is
appearing alongwith other teachers who are not infact indicted in the
present crime. Nevertheless, the said submission of the prosecution is
explicitly kept open for trial.
11. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and
findings, Bail Application of Applicants is allowed subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant No.2 – Aafaque Anjum Ashfaque Ahmad is
directed to be immediately released from prison in
connection with CR. No.181 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant No.4 – Shaikh Arif Ibrahim is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
CR. No.181 of 2025;
(iii) Applicants are directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen
5 of 7
35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc
Thousand only) each with one or two sureties in the
like amount;
(iii) Applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Pawarwadi Police Station, once every month, on the
first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall
attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;
(iv) Applicants shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial
and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,
unless specifically exempted. Applicants shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall
entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;
(v) Applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicants shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of their current residential address and mobile
telephone number and shall forthwith inform the
Investigating Officer of any change in their residential
address or mobile telephone number, as and when such
change occurs; and
6 of 7
35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicants.
12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
13. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.21
15:25:37 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.