SHAHARUKH SANDU SAYYADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38133
                                              -1-
                                                                    902-BA-1693-2026

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1693 OF 2026

                               SHAHARUKH SANDU SAYYAD
                                           VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                              ......
              Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Akshara Sharad Madake
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. D. J. Patil
                                              .....

                                         CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                          DATED : 20th AUGUST 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.         Heard learned Advocate for applicant and learned

              Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.


              2.         The present application for regular bail is filed by the

              applicant, who is arraigned as accused in FIR bearing Crime No.

              0289 of 2026, dated 20th July, 2026, registered with Waluj Police

              Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (City), for offences

              punishable under Sections 122 and 135 of the Maharashtra Police

              Act, 1951, and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act,

              1959.


              3.         The prosecution case, in brief, is stated to be based on

              FIR dated 20th July, 2026, lodged by Police Constable Raju Fulkar,

              attached to Waluj Police Station, alleging that, in the intervening

              night of 19th July, 2026 and 20th July, 2026, when the informant
                                  -2-
                                                     902-BA-1693-2026

along with other police personnel was on patrolling duty, he

received secret information and visited Jikthan, where they found

five persons in suspicious condition. When the search of the said

persons was carried out, accused Rahul Gaikwad was found in

possession of one knife and therefore, an offence under Section 122

read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act came to be

registered against all the said five persons.


4.          During the course of investigation, it is alleged that

when the scrutiny of mobile phone of accused Siddhant Dhanedar

was conducted, there was a photograph of a country-made pistol

was found in the said mobile phone. When accused Siddhant

Dhanedar was interrogated in respect of the said photograph, it is

alleged that he disclosed that the said pistol was handed over to the

present applicant with the help of co-accused Rahul Gaikwad. The

investigation was therefore conducted in respect of the illegal

possession of the firearm. During the said investigation, the

present applicant was apprehended and a country-made pistol was

found in his possession. He then made a disclosure that accused

Sachin Ghorpade is the owner of said pistol and he had supplied the

said pistol to present applicant. The recovery of said pistol was

made from the possession of the present applicant, and

accordingly, offences under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the
                                -3-
                                                    902-BA-1693-2026

Arms Act was added to the original FIR.


5.         The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant

submits that the offence alleged against the present applicant is

not in respect of the main offence, but is only in respect of

possessing the arm without a licence. She further submits that the

offence levelled against the applicant is under Section 3 read with

Section 25 of the Arms Act, and that the minimum punishment for

the said offence is two years and the maximum punishment is five

years. She argues that the present applicant has been arrested on

20th July 2026 and since then, he has been in custody. She

therefore submits that the applicant has sufficiently undergone

custody and during his custody he has cooperated with the

investigating agency. The recovery of the arm has already been

effected and therefore there is no reason why the applicant's

custody should be continued.


6.         Per contra, learned APP argues that the illegal arm has

been possessed by the present applicant and has also been

recovered from his possession. Admittedly, there is no licence

available with the present applicant for possessing the same. In

presence of such direct evidence against the present applicant, the

involvement of the present applicant is therefore established. He

further argues that, one of the accused, who has actually procured
                                     -4-
                                                        902-BA-1693-2026

the said arms and sold the same to co-accused Sachin Ghorpade

and have even provided the same to the present applicant. He is

still   absconding.   His   arrest    for   the   purpose   of   effective

investigation of the present crime is necessary. He submits that, if

the present applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood

that he may tip off the absconding accused and accordingly the

accused will not be available for the purpose of investigation.


7.           I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the

applicant as well as the learned APP appearing for the respondent -

State. The principles governing the exercise of discretion in

granting bail are quite settled. The Court is required to consider the

gravity and seriousness of the offence and the accusation. The

strength of the prima facie material, the punishment prescribed for

the offence along with the stage of investigation, are also prime

considerations while deciding bail application. The accusation of

unauthorized possession of arm is undoubtedly serious. The

recovery attributed to the applicant constitutes prima facie

material connecting him with the offence under the Arms Act and

cannot be disregarded at this stage. At the same time, the

seriousness of the accusation is one factor and must be considered

along with the corresponding circumstances bearing upon the

necessity of continued pre-trial detention. The prosecution itself
                                -5-
                                                     902-BA-1693-2026

does not allege that the present applicant was present along with

the five suspicious persons, who were intercepted during the

original patrolling duty. Indeed, the order of the learned Sessions

Judge itself clearly records that the present applicant has no

concern with the occurrence of the original offence, which

attracted Sections 122 and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and

that his implication arose later during the investigation of the

offence under the Arms Act.


8.         The country-made pistol alleged to have been in the

applicant's possession has already been seized. The prosecution

may legitimately continue its investigation into the origin and

chain of supply of the weapon. However, on the material presently

shown, the fact that such investigation remains pending or that

one absconding accused is yet to be arrested does not, by itself,

make further custodial detention of the present applicant

indispensable. The alleged offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) is

triable by a Magistrate and is punishable with imprisonment which

may extend to five years. The applicant has been in custody since

20th July, 2026. Nothing has been placed before the Court to

indicate any criminal antecedents. His attendance and cooperation

can be secured by time-bound reporting conditions.
                                  -6-
                                                      902-BA-1693-2026

9.           On a cumulative consideration of the nature of the

accusation, the prima facie recovery, the applicant's distinct role,

the seizure already effected, the punishment prescribed, the period

of custody undergone and the absence of any antecedents against

the applicant, these are considerations which operate in favour of

the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has made out a case for

grant of bail. Hence, the following order:


                                ORDER

(i)    The Bail Application is allowed.


(ii)   The applicant - Shaharukh Sandu Sayyad shall be released on
       bail in Crime No. 0289 of 2026 registered with Waluj Police
       Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (City), for
       offences punishable under Sections 122 and 135 of the
       Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Section 3 read with
       Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, on furnishing a personal
       bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one
       solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following
       conditions :

       a)    Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as
             and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall
             co-operate in the investigation. The applicant shall
             attend the trial Court on every date fixed, unless their
             attendance is specifically exempted.


       b)    The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact,
             threaten, induce or influence the informant or any
                                     -7-
                                                           902-BA-1693-2026

               prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
               prosecution evidence.


          c)   The applicant shall furnish his current residential
               addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating
               Officer and the trial Court within seven days of release,
               intimate   any   change      forthwith,   and    attend   the
               Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further
               investigation is required.


          d)   The applicant shall not leave India without prior
               permission of the trial Court and, if they possess
               passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court
               within seven days of their release.


          e)   The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of
               a similar nature while on bail.


          f)   Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
               prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.


          g)   All observations in this order are prima facie and
               confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial
               Court shall decide the case independently on the
               evidence led before it.


(iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.



                                            (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                   JUDGE
Tandale