Bombay High Court
SOHEL FIROZ SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to the conditions imposed by the court.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered an application under Section 439 of the CrPC for bail of a 20‑year‑old accused (Accused No.3) in a case involving alleged illegal possession and sale of a country‑made pistol under Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused was present when a pistol was displayed for sale, but the seized weapon and cartridges were recovered from Accused No.1, not from the applicant. The court noted that no specific role was attributed to the applicant in the FIR, he had no criminal antecedents, and his young age warranted a reformative approach. Applying the standard bail parameters—likelihood of appearance, gravity of offence, risk of tampering, and personal circumstances—the court found insufficient prima facie material to deny bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to strict conditions, and the court clarified that its observations were limited to bail and not on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, accused No.3, is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the CrPC given the alleged involvement in illegal arms possession and sale.
- Whether the prima facie evidence disclosed in the FIR and recovery report justifies denial of bail on grounds of gravity of offence, risk of tampering, or likelihood of absconding.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 3, 5
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1)(3)
Subjects
- bail
- arms possession
- illegal weapons
- young offender
- Section 439 CrPC
- reformative justice
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
BA.3413.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3413 OF 2026
Sohel Firoz Shaikh .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Mateen Shaikh a/w. Mr. Ansar Tamboli, Mr. Hassan Siddiqui
and Ms. Muskan Shaikh, Advocates for Applicant.
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent - State.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Rao, learned APP for Respondent - State.
2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.415 of
2026 registered with Nashik Road Police Station, District Nashik for
the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Arms Act,
1959 read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
2.1. The Applicant before me is a young offender aged 20 years
old and has been arraigned as Accused No. 3 in the present case. It is
the case of the prosecution that on 04.07.2026, the Anti-Gunda Squad
received secret information that a person was likely to come to
Maldhakka Road for the purpose of selling a country-made pistol
(“Gauthi Katta”). Pursuant to the said information, the Complainant -
1 of 9
BA.3413.2026.doc
Rakesh Mahadu Raut, constituted and arranged a raiding team. Acting
upon the said information, the raiding team proceeded to the spot and
noticed a suspicious person allegedly showing a “Gauthi Katta” to three
(3) other persons. The raiding team immediately intercepted the said
persons and apprehended them. However, one of the persons managed
to flee from the spot. However two other persons were apprehended
along with the present Applicant - Accused No. 3.
2.2. It is the case of the prosecution that upon conducting a
personal search of the apprehended accused persons in the presence of
two police officers, a country-made pistol (“Gauthi Katta”) along with
two live cartridges was recovered from Accused No. 1. Thereafter, the
recovered articles were produced before two panch witnesses and a
detailed panchanama of the seizure and recovery was prepared.
2.3. It is prosecution case that the country-made pistol had been
purchased by Accused No. 1 from one Manoj Dogle, who has been
arraigned as Accused No. 5 in the present crime. Hence, accused
persons were found in breach of the prohibitory order issued by the
Commissioner of Police, Nashik City, under Section 37(1)(3) of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered
against five (5) accused persons including the present Applicant for
illegally obtaining and possessing a country-made pistol (“Gauthi
Katta”) and two cartridges without any valid licence for the purpose of
2 of 9
BA.3413.2026.doc
sale. The Applicant was arrested on 04.07.2026 along with the other
co-accused persons and has remained in custody thereafter.
3. Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant
would submit that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the
present crime. He would submit that no recovery has been effected at
the instance of the present Applicant - Accused No.3. In fact, the
recovery of the country-made pistol and two cartridges was effected at
the instance of Accused No.1. He would therefore submit that the
offence punishable under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Arms Act,
1959, is not made out against the present Applicant. He would further
submit that insofar as the role attributed to the present Applicant is
concerned, there is no specific or substantive role assigned to him in
the commission of the offence. He would submit that considering that
the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is 3 years
no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the Applicant
incarcerated any further.
3.1. He would further submit that Applicant has no criminal
antecedents to his discredit. He is a young boy aged about 20 years
and is the sole earning member of his family. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, he would urge that the present Application be allowed
and the Applicant be released on bail.
3 of 9
BA.3413.2026.doc
4. Ms. Rao, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State
would vehemently oppose the present Application. She would submit
that the role of Applicant as well as that of the other accused persons is
clearly attributed in the FIR. She would submit that Applicant was
present when Accused No.1 was displaying the country-made pistol to
the other co-accused persons for sale.
4.1. She would submit that the material placed on record prima
facie indicates involvement of Applicant in commission of the alleged
crime, particularly in view of the recovery effected from Accused No.1.
She would submit that the nature and gravity of the offence also
deserve consideration as possession and use of illegal arms and
ammunition may facilitate the commission of further offences.
4.2. She would further submit that the possibility of Applicant
repeating or committing similar offences by using firearms, tampering
with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding cannot be ruled
out. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, she would urge that the
present Application be rejected in the interest of justice.
5. I have heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Applicant and
Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent - State and with their able
assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by both
the learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of
the Court.
4 of 9
BA.3413.2026.doc
6. It is settled law that a Court while deciding a Bail Application
has to keep in mind the principal rule of bail which is to ascertain
whether the accused is likely to appear before the court for trial. There
are other broad parameters also like gravity of offence, likelihood of
accused repeating the offence while on bail, whether he would
influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, his antecedents
which are required to be considered in such cases.
7. Prima facie, it seen that Applicant - Accused No. 3 is
implicated in the present crime on allegation of sale of illegal weapon.
However, upon perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the Applicant was
merely present at the spot of the incident. Further, recovery of one
country-made pistol and two cartridges was made from Accused No. 1
and no recovery whatsoever is made from present Applicant. Thus, at
this prima facie stage material on record does not disclose commission
of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Arms Act,
1959 by Applicant. It is also significant to note that no specific role has
been attributed to Accused No. 3 in the FIR either.
8. Further, it is also necessary to take into consideration the
young age of the Applicant, who is 20 years old. Applicant also has no
criminal antecedents to his discredit. These circumstances, coupled
with the absence of any specific role attributed to him and the fact that
no recovery has been effected at his instance, deserve due
5 of 9
BA.3413.2026.doc
consideration while deciding present Bail Application.
9. Considering Applicant’s age, if he is enlarged on bail Court is
hopeful that his family will undoubtedly do their duty to make every
effort and attempt to reform and aid the Applicant in leading a
reformed life while on bail rather than keep him in prison and expose
him to criminal outlook and life in prison. However on the flip side, if a
chance is given to the Applicant because of his young age by enlarging
him on bail, there is a possibility that he will be remorseful and repent
in retrospect. This is a chance required to be taken by the Court
because punishment has to be believed to be inflicted for a reformative
result rather than being punitive in nature.
10. Undoubtedly the trial will determine the complicity of
Applicant in the offence. While considering Bail Application in such
facts, Court feels that reform and rehabilitation of the under trial
accused needs to be considered especially when age of the accused
person is young so that he gets an opportunity / or is given an
opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and earn his livelihood honorably
from the perspective of social integration. This is a chance which the
Court must take considering the young age of accused person. The age
of the Applicant is very young. If the Applicant is incarcerated in prison
further, there is every possibility that he might lose faith in the
institution and society at large and may tread the path of criminality or
6 of 9
BA.3413.2026.doc
would waste his life. Incarceration in prison exposes many youth to
abuse as is shown statistically.
11. There are several harms of incarceration which are inflicted
disproportionately on the youth. This is the reason why Court feels that
any / every semblance of a chance towards a reformative approach in
punishment should be adopted, especially in the case of young
offenders. Hence every opportunity or to that extent risk should be
constructively taken by the Court in the case of young offenders –
accused before committing such accused to further custody and give
such accused an opportunity to become a good citizen in the Society.
These observations are only in the view of the young age of the
Applicant before me and it is only a means to explore an alternative to
incarceration so that the Applicant can become a good citizen.
12. Hence, in view of my aforesaid prima facie observations and
findings, Bail Application is allowed subject to the following
conditions:-
13. Hence, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the
following terms and conditions:-
(1) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with C.R.No. 415 of 2026;
(2) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
7 of 9
BA.3413.2026.doc
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty
Thousand only) with one or two surety of the like
amount;
(3) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
concerned 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;
(4) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(5) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(6) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(7) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and /
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(8) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
8 of 9
BA.3413.2026.doc
of bail granted to the Applicant.
14. 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.
15. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.16
13:10:38 +0530
9 of 9
Checking your session…