IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 648 OF 2026 Quazi Affan Ahmed And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2139 OF 2026 IN ABA/648/2026 Xyz VERSUS Quazi Affan Ahmed And Others Mr. S. G. Sonawane, Advocate for applicants Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for respondent-State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 07th JULY, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Applicants seek bail in connection with Crime No. 0685 of 2025 registered with Cidco Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Section 309(4), 189(2), 74, 75, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 324(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Muskan Salim Pathan claims herself to be an Advocate, lodged report with the police alleging occurrence of incident on 15.11.2025 in which she was abused, assaulted and her modesty was outraged. There is also allegation that the applicants accused has 947-ABA-648-2026.odt 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:26563 snatched mobile phone as well as money from her. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants, at the outset, drew attention of this Court to the information sought from Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa indicating that informant is not an Advocate. It is her further submission that since the informant is not an Advocate, question of she being engaged for any legal work and any money to be paid to her does not arise. She also drew attention of the Court to the N.C. Report lodged by mother of the applicant which is previous in time indicating that informant and her parents went to the house of the applicant and threatened them to pay amount and in failure thereto further threatened them to involve applicant in a false crime. On the basis of these facts on record, according to her, there would be no reason to accept the allegations made in the First Information Report to be true. Hence, liberty of the applicants deserves to be protected. 4. Learned APP opposed grant of any protection to the applicants on the ground that there are specific allegations against the applicants in the First Information Report. 5. Learned Counsel for the informant also opposes the application. On specific query made by this Court with regard to as to whether informant is an advocate, on instructions, he makes statement 947-ABA-648-2026.odt 2 of 4 that informant is not an Advocate. In response thereto, learned Counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to the First Information Report indicating that the occupation of the informant is shown to be Advocate. 6. Prima facie, this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that this could be a case of false implication. The reason there for is that informant misrepresented police by projecting herself to be an Advocate. She sought to lodge report pretending that she had taken brief of the applicant and for that purpose, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was due to be payable to her by applicant as legal fees. On the basis of document on record in the form of information received from the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, it can be seen that the informant is not an Advocate. Moreover, statement is made on behalf of the informant also confirmed the fact that she is not an Advocate, she is studying law. 7. First Information Report clearly shows that informant has pretended herself to be an Advocate and her contention about any payment to be made to her towards court case does not arise. There is reason to believe the arguments of learned Counsel for applicant that this could be a case of false allegations being made against applicant. Applicants, therefore, entitled for pre-arrest bail. In such circumstance, 947-ABA-648-2026.odt 3 of 4 protection is required to be issued to the concerned Investigation Officer. Hence the order :- ORDER (i) Application is allowed. (ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No. 0685 of 2025 registered with Cidco Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Section 309(4), 189(2), 74, 75, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 324(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) They shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer with written intimation. (iv) They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (v) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (vi) They are further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. 8. Investigating Officer is directed to take appropriate action as provided by law against the informant. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) B. S. Joshi 947-ABA-648-2026.odt 4 of 4