IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 917 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 480 OF 2025 PRAMANAND NARAYAN TIMMEWAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. Amol Narhari Kakade, Advocate for Applicant Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. No.30/2025, dated 05.02.2025, registered with Osmanpura Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (City), District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 74, 333, 324(4), 329(1), 352, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The First Information Report indicates that, on 04.02.2025 at about 5:24 p.m., two unknown persons allegedly entered the office of the informant and caused damage to the property to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs. Be that as it may, the question that arises for consideration in the present application is whether the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for a proper and effective investigation of the crime. 917 ABA 480.2025.odt 1 of 6 2026:BHC-AUG:23674 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the First Information Report indicates that two unknown persons had entered the office of the informant and caused damage to the property. As such, the name of the present applicant does not find place in the First Information Report. According to him, the applicant had no reason or motive to commit the offence alleged against him. It is further submitted that the liberty of the applicant was protected by the grant of interim relief vide order dated 25.03.2025. Pursuant to the said order, the applicant has co-operated with the investigation and has also handed over his mobile phone to the Investigating Agency. It is his submission by referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vinay Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in SLP(Cri.) No. 20215/2025, that the Investigating Agency cannot insist upon the accused incriminate himself and the cooperation with the investigation does not extend to the violation of the constitutional right against self incrimination. He submits that on the basis of statement of co-accused, involvement of the applicant cannot be considered in this crime. He further argues that the website of the department of Telecommunication indicates that the IMEI number referred in CDR is invalid. 4. Learned APP opposed the application by contending that though the offence in question appears the causing damage of the property, during the 917 ABA 480.2025.odt 2 of 6 investigation, the applicant has mislead the Investigating Agency by surrendering different mobile phone than the one which was used during the period of commission crime. In support of the said contention, she places reliance upon the Call Detail Records (CDR), which indicate that the mobile phone used at the relevant time reflected a different IMEI number, whereas the mobile phone handed over by the applicant to the Investigating Officer bears a different IMEI number. According to her, this circumstance indicates that the applicant has not produced the mobile phone used during the relevant period. She further submits that, even if the statement of the co- accused is kept aside, there is independent material to show that the applicant was in contact with the co-accused both prior to and on the date of the incident. According to her, therefore, this is not a case where the prosecution seeks to implicate the applicant solely on the basis of the statement of a co- accused. Learned APP further submits that interim protection was granted to the applicant subject to the condition that he would co-operate with the investigation. According to her, by producing a different mobile phone, the applicant has failed to comply with the said condition. She therefore contends that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for recovery of the mobile phone allegedly used during the relevant period. She also draws the attention of the Court to approximately 35 WhatsApp calls exchanged 917 ABA 480.2025.odt 3 of 6 between the applicant and the co-accused, out of which several call records are stated to have been deleted. According to her, this material demonstrates that, apart from the statement of the co-accused, there exists independent evidence connecting the applicant with the crime in question. 5. There cannot be dispute made with regard to the argument that in the case like one in hand, there could not have been reason to reject the anticipatory bail application since the applicant has admittedly not participated in the actual incident. However, the matter become serious in view of the fact that the applicant was directed to cooperate in the investigation and on that condition, his liberty was protected. Prima facie, there is material on record to indicate that the applicant and the co-accused were in contact with each other and that the mobile handset used by the applicant during the relevant period appears to be different from the one produced before the Investigating Agency, having regard to the IMEI number reflected in the Call Detail Records. Although the applicant has handed over a mobile handset to the Investigating Agency, there is prima facie material to show that the said handset bears a different IMEI number. Needless to say that any such misrepresentation made by the applicant cannot be ignored lightly. Even if it is accepted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vinay Kumar Gupta (supra), that co-operation with the 917 ABA 480.2025.odt 4 of 6 investigation does not extend to the surrender of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, no such protection can be claimed when the Investigating Agency seeks recovery and seizure of a material object such as a mobile handset. In the opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation of the applicant appears necessary for the purpose of recovery of the mobile handset allegedly used during the relevant period, which may contain material having a bearing on the investigation. In that view of the matter, this Court finds substance in the submissions advanced by the learned APP. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and more particularly in view of the conduct of the applicant in producing a mobile handset different from the one allegedly used during the relevant period, thereby prima facie misleading the Investigating Agency, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Such interrogation cannot be effectively carried out under the protective umbrella of the interim relief granted by this Court. Hence, application stands dismissed. 7. At this stage, learned Advocate for the applicant seeks continuation of interim relief on the ground that he is protected from arrest from March, 2025. 917 ABA 480.2025.odt 5 of 6 8. Learned APP opposed the said request on the ground that the liberty of the applicant has already remained protected for more than a year. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this order shall remain stayed for a period of four weeks from today. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 917 ABA 480.2025.odt 6 of 6