SHAHRUKH SATTAR SAYYEDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:44296
                                                                       RB54BA1548-26

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1548 of 2026

                  Arbaz Mazher Khan                              ...   Applicant
                  Age 20 years, Occu: Nil
                  R/o House No. 10-5-46, Near Jaliwali
                  Dargah, Kiradpura, Aurangabad


                  VERSUS

                  The State of Maharashtra                  … Respondent
                  Through Police Inspector,
                  MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad.
                                            WITH
                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1713 of 2026

                  Shahrukh Sattar Sayyed                         ...   Applicant
                  Age 25 years, Occu: Driver
                  R/o Plot No. 33, S. No.122, Misarwadi
                  Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhjinagar)


                  VERSUS

                  The State of Maharashtra                       …     Respondent
                  Through Police Inspector,
                  MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad.

                                                .....
            Mr. Satej S. Jadhav and Mr. Atul P. Shejul, Advocates for the Applicant
            Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the Respondent State

                                    CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                       DATE: 28th September, 2026
            ORDER:-


            1.        The present applications are for regular bail by the applicants,

            who are arraigned as accused in connection with Crime No. 185 of

            2026 registered with MIDC, CIDCO Police Station, District Chatrapati

                                                                                   1 of 5
                                                         RB54BA1548-26


Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 3(5)

of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and

Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The incident in question has

taken place in the night of 11.04.2026 and the present applicants were

also arrested on the same day. Since then, they are lingering in custody.

Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has also been filed.


2.       It is the case of the prosecution that the informant was asked

to come at the spot of incident at 2.00 a.m. in the night by the present

applicants on account of settling the past dispute among themselves. It

is alleged that when the informant reached the spot, at that time,

without assigning any reason, the present applicant Arbaz removed a

sword from four wheeler and started assaulting him on head. It is also

alleged that the applicant Shahrukh assaulted the informant on his

hand and leg. When the persons in the Hotel started assembling near

the spot, at that time, the applicants allegedly fled away from the spot.

The informant was taken to the Hospital and thereafter, the present

offence came to be registered.


3.       The submissions of the learned Advocate for the applicants, at

this stage, is that perusal of the injury certificate annexed by the

prosecution itself refers that the injuries that have been caused to the

informant are simple in nature. Investigation is complete and the

custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not necessary. They,

therefore, pray that on the ground that the applicants have been inside

since April, 2026, they may be released on bail.

                                                                    2 of 5
                                                           RB54BA1548-26


4.       The    learned   APP,   however,    vehemently     opposed     the

application by stating that, though the injuries referred to in the injury

certificate of the informant are simple in nature, the intention of the

applicants will have to be inferred from the fact that they came to the

spot prepared and armed with swords. The moment the informant

arrived there, they assaulted him with an intention to commit his

murder. However, fortunately, the informant survived the injuries. The

accused Arbaz has a criminal antecedent of being involved in an office

under section 302 IPC while he was juvenile. The said fact has not been

disclosed by the applicant Arbaz in his application and, therefore,

violates the directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Zeba

Khan v. State of U.P.     However he fairly admits that as far as the

Applicant Shaharukh is concerned, there are no antecedents.


5.       I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicants as well as

the learned APP appearing for the State and I have also perused the

entire charge-sheet.


6.       On reading the statements of the eyewitnesses, there appear

to be two versions. One version states that there was an incident of

assault, whereas there are also witnesses who state that there was a

scuffle between the two groups. One of the eyewitnesses, who claims to

know the informant, states that he was present at the spot and that a

quarrel took place between the applicant and the informant along with

his friends, which escalated into a scuffle and thereafter into an assault.

This version creates a doubt as to whether the informant was called to

                                                                      3 of 5
                                                            RB54BA1548-26


the spot alone and whether he was alone when the assault took place.

In any case, this is not the stage to draw any inference.


7.        Taking into consideration the medical certificate, the injures

which have been caused to the informant are all simple in nature, the

sword has been recovered from the accused Shaharukh, investigation is

complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed, there is noting

for which the continuation of custody of the present applicant is

necessary. Though the criminal antecedes of the applicant Arbaz is

brought to the notice of this Court, appropriate procedure will be that

the prosecution can bring this fact of subsequent offence to the notice

of the Court before whom the said offence is being tried. However, as

far as the applicants in the present case are concerned, I am inclined to

allow the applications. Hence, the following order:-

                                 ORDER


(i)   Both the Bail Applications are allowed.

(ii) The Applicants,    Arbaz Mazher Khan and Shahrukh Sattar
      Sayyed, in connection with rime No. 185 of 2026 registered
      with MIDC, CIDCO Police Station,            District Chatrapti
      Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections
      109(1), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,     Section 4/25
      of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police
      Actbe released on bail on furnishing personal bond of
      Rs.50,000/-( Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one or
      two sureties of the like amount.

(iii)) The Applicants shall attend the concerned police station as

                                                                    4 of 5
                                                                  RB54BA1548-26

               and when required by the Investigating Officer.

           (iv) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses
               and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any
               manner.




                                                    ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan




                                                                           5 of 5