Bombay High Court

ASLAM GAFUR SAYYADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 8 May 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail subject to conditions to prevent interference with the trial.

Summary

Advocate Aslam Gafur Sayyad applied for regular bail in a case where he is accused of preparing false and forged documents to provide surety and impersonating a surety before the trial court. The prosecution argued that he is the main culprit and could abscond or influence witnesses if released. The defense highlighted that co‑accused facing similar charges have been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant has no prior criminal record, and he has been in custody for over fourteen months pending trial. The court noted the similarity of allegations to those of the co‑accused, the applicant's clean antecedents, and the pending nature of the trial. Accordingly, the court granted bail on condition of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties, and imposed conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, an advocate accused of forging documents and impersonation, is entitled to regular bail.
Whether the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses justifies denial of bail.
Whether the bail granted to co‑accused facing similar charges is relevant to the applicant's bail application.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5), 59(a), 61(2)

Subjects

bail
forged documents
surety
impersonation
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
advocate
trial
conditions

Judgment

                                                        906-BA-786-2026 (CR).docx

Rohit Ghuge

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      BAIL APPLICATION NO. 786 OF 2026

Aslam Gafur Sayyad                                   ...APPLICANT
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra                                 ...RESPONDENT
_________________________________________________________________
Adv. A. Karim Pathan a/w Adv. Shane Ilahi Turky a/w Fazlurrahman
Shaikh a/w Kahkashan Ansari, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
PSI, M.P. Shaikh, Wanvadi Police Station, Pune City.
_________________________________________________________________

                                        CORAM       :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                        DATE        :   8th MAY, 2026.
P.C. :

1.            By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in

Crime No. 11 of 2025 registered with Wanwadi Police Station, Pune for the

offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2),

59(a), 61(2), 111(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short)

2.            It is prosecution’s case that the Applicant is advocate, he and co-

accused prepared false and forged documents to give surety on behalf of

original Accused in bail matters of the Applicant and impersonated the

original surety before the trial Court, and allowed the Bail Applications of

the concerned accused.

3.            It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that co-

accused Advocate Rahul Lonandkar, Reshma Salunkhe and Yogesh Jadhav,

                                    Page 1 of 3
                                                       906-BA-786-2026 (CR).docx

Rohit Ghuge

against whom similar allegations are levelled have been released on

anticipatory bail. The allegations against those co-accused and the

Applicant are similar. The Applicant is behind bars for more than 14

months. The Applicant has no antecedents. The Applicant is an Advocate,

and requested to allow the Application.

4.            It is contention of learned APP that the Applicant is the main

culprit who forged and fabricated the documents to give surety for the

Accused in concerned crime before the trial Court. If the Applicant released

on bail, he may abscond or threaten and prosecution witnesses, and

requested to reject the Application.

5.            I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and

documents produced on record.

6.            The allegations against the Applicant are similar to the co-

accused Advocate Rahul Lonandkar, Reshma Salunkhe and Yogesh Jadhav,

who have been released on bail. The Applicant is behind bars for more

than fourteen month. The applicant has no antecedents. It may take time

to conclude the trial.

7.            Considering these facts, I pass following order.



                                     ORDER

              (i)        The Applicant be released on bail in Crime

              No. 11 of 2025 registered with Wanwadi Police Station,

                                    Page 2 of 3
                                                         906-BA-786-2026 (CR).docx

Rohit Ghuge

              Pune, on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or

              two solvent sureties in the like amount.

              (ii)       The Applicant shall not tamper with the

              evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.

              (iii)      The Trial Court shall decide the case on its

              own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by

              the observations made in this order.

              (iv)       The Applicant shall attend the concerned

              Police Station as and when required.

              (v)        Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.



                                                         (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                   Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…