Bombay High Court
IMRAN MUNNA QURESHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The bail application is rejected as the court found a prima facie case against the applicant.
Summary
Imran Munna Qureshi applied for bail in a case where he was alleged to have fired at a victim during a shooting on 3 January 2025. The FIR named only an accomplice (A‑1) and did not name the applicant; no identification parade was conducted to confirm his presence. The prosecution relied on the victim’s supplementary statement identifying A‑1 as the rider and on the recovery of a firearm allegedly used in the crime. The applicant contended that the lack of identification and the questionable recovery of the gun rendered the evidence unreliable, while the State highlighted his ten criminal antecedents, including pending murder and arms‑act cases, asserting a prima facie case. The court held that, despite procedural gaps, the existence of a prima facie case and the applicant’s criminal history justified denial of bail. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected, with the order limited to the bail question and not influencing the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- The absence of the applicant’s name in the FIR and lack of an identification parade, and whether they preclude a prima facie case for bail
- The adequacy of the victim’s supplementary statement and the recovered firearm as evidence to deny bail
- The impact of the applicant’s criminal antecedents and pending cases on the grant of bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1949 — s. 25, 3
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- prima facie case
- identification parade
- criminal antecedents
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- firearm seizure
- pending murder case
- trial
- court order
Judgment
P.H. JAYANI 918 BA1812.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1812 OF 2026
Imran Munna Qureshi …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Zaid A. Qureshi for the Applicant.
Ms. S.K. Gajare, APP for the Respondent – State.
Ms. Neha Hnade, PSI, Sanpada Police Station, present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in Cr.No.10/2025
registered with Sanpada Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the
offence punishable under Sections 109, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1949 on
the Report dated 03.01.2025 filed by Mr. Sameer Kadam,
informant.
3. The prosecution case is that on 03.01.2025, at about 9:50
a.m., at Sanpada, two unknown persons came on a bike. The
pillion rider on the bike fired 5 bullets at the injured-Rajaram
Toke who was present in his Car. One bullet hit on his right side
stomach and one at the right elbow. Therefore, the aforesaid crime
came to be registered. During investigation, police recorded the
statements of the witnesses including supplementary statement of
the injured. Investigation revealed that, at the time of the incident,
Page 1 of 3
P.H. JAYANI 918 BA1812.2026.DOC
the injured was doing a vegetable and fodder business in
partnership with Mr. Telange and Mr. Wadkar. Mr. Telange used
to give some money of the business to Santosh Gawali (Accused
No.1). Meanwhile, Mr. Telange stopped paying money to A1.
However, A1 misunderstood that the injured was responsible for
stoppage of the money. Therefore, A1 along with present applicant
came at the spot together and, the applicant fired at the injured.
4. Mr. Qureshi, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant is not named in the Report. No test
identification parade was conducted to ascertain and establish the
identity of the applicant for the purpose of investigation and trial.
The recovery of the Gun allegedly used in the offence is not only
planted but also not reliable. Therefore, the applicant is entitled
for bail.
5. In contrast, Ms. Gajare, the learned APP submitted that
there is sufficient material against the applicant indicating his
involvement in this crime. The applicant has criminal antecedents.
Hence, the bail be refused.
6. I have considered these submissions. There is no dispute
about the fact that the applicant is not named in the Report.
However, in his supplementary statement, the injured has given
the name of A1 as the person who was riding the bike along with
the offender who had fired at him. Since A-1 stopped getting
money from the injured’s business, A1 had motive to commit the
crime. The learned APP submitted that A1 himself had disclosed
that the applicant was the pillion with him who had fired at the
informant. This statement is not admissible. However, as per the
Report of the C.A., the firearm recovered by the applicant is the
same by which the seized bullets were fired at the injured.
Page 2 of 3
P.H. JAYANI 918 BA1812.2026.DOC
7. In the wake of the above, there is a prima facie case against
the applicant of having committed the alleged offence. Excluding
this case, the applicant has ten criminal antecedents. In seven
cases, he has been either acquitted or discharged, as submitted by
Mr. Qureshi. However, one case of the offence of murder and one
under Arms Act, are still pending against him. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled for bail.
8. As a result, the Bail Application is liable to be rejected and,
is rejected, accordingly.
9. It is clarified that the observations made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application
and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be
taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
PREETI (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
HEERO .
JAYANI
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.09.18
11:02:28 +0530
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.