1 43-Cr.BA-1051-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 1051 OF 2026 Mohd. Mustaqeem Mohd. Mumtaz -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. R.M. Daga, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. A.M. Kadukar, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : AUGUST 21, 2026. Heard. 2. The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.521/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 118(2), 49 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Nagpuri Gate, District Amravati. 3. As per the First Information Report, the informant stated that on 21/10/2025, between 12:00 to 12:15 a.m., while he was working at Shah Bailun Masjid, he heard a commotion outside and, upon coming out, saw the accused, Mustakim Pathan, quarrelling with his nephew, Abdul Sohel. According to the informant, the accused was holding a knife, and stabbed him in the abdomen. The informant Piyush Mahajan 2026:BHC-NAG:10969 2 43-Cr.BA-1051-2026 alleged that the incident arose from the accused’s suspicion that Abdul Sohel had thrown firecrackers at his premises on the previous night. On the basis of the informant’s report, the offence was registered and investigation was commenced. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, there was earlier a dispute between the groups of deceased and applicant. On the day of incident, it is alleged that the applicant has given a blow by knife on the armpit of Sohel, due to which, he succumbed to death. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in fact, initially, the deceased along with other person attacked the applicant with sword and farsha. He has invited my attention to the injury certificate of the applicant which shows that he has sustained 17 stitches. In retaliation, the applicant has given a blow under the armpit of the deceased, however, unfortunately he died. The applicant was not having any intention to commit the murder of deceased, however, in retaliation he has given a blow on the person of the deceased. Both the parties have registered F.I.R. against each other. Under such circumstances, he submits that, considering the injuries on the person of the applicant, the applicant be released on bail. He further submits that, it is for the trial Court to decide as to who was the aggressor Piyush Mahajan 3 43-Cr.BA-1051-2026 which will be decided by the Trial Court after appreciation of evidence. It cannot be looked into at the stage of granting bail (Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.11714/2022 in the case of Mukesh Kumar -Vrs.- The State of Rajasthan & Another). 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the application and submits that, the blow given by the applicant was so ghastly that it has caused an injury up to 10 cms deep. He further invited my attention to the post-mortem report and submits that if the applicant did not have the intention to kill the deceased, he would not have used that much of force to inflict the blow. Though there are counter cases, however, he submits that, considering the allegations against the applicant, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. It appears that both the parties have registered F.I.R against each other. So far as the allegations made form the side of the applicant is concerned, it is alleged that, the deceased and another person has initiated the quarrel and inflicted blow with the help of sword and farshi which has caused serious injuries on the person of the applicant, which is as under:- Piyush Mahajan 4 43-Cr.BA-1051-2026 “Deep wound over right temporal region. Deep cut over left middle and ring finger. 17 stitches all over grounds to have been given. ” So far as the applicant inflicting the blow on deceased is concerned, it is under the armpit which is a deep penetrated wound measuring 1.5 cms in length, 1.5 cms in breadth and 10 cms deep, starting from the left deltoid region and directed medially and downwards, ends deep in left axillary region (armpit). The cause of death is shown as “Complications following haemorrhagic shock due to axilla injury”. No doubt, there are witnesses to the incident, but they are from both the sides. The Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra), has held that it is for the trial Court to decide who was the aggressor depending upon the appreciation of evidence during the trial, and accordingly, the Supreme Court has granted bail to Mukush Kumar. In the present case also, as stated above, the applicant has sustained serious injuries on his head and it is alleged in the F.I.R. filed by the applicant that deceased and one another person has used Farshi and sword to inflict those injuries. Considering the nature of allegations and the observations of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case to grant bail Piyush Mahajan 5 43-Cr.BA-1051-2026 by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The Criminal Application is allowed; (ii) The applicant/accused (Mohd. Mustaqeem Mohd. Mumtaz) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.521/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 118(2), 49 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered with Police Station Nagpuri Gate, District Amravati, on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties in the like amount; (iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence; (iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to the Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency; Piyush Mahajan 6 43-Cr.BA-1051-2026 (v) Once the trial commences, the accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial subject to genuine reason to the satisfaction of trial court, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail; (vi) The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same. (vii) Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of [ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan Signed by: Piyush Ramesh Mahajan Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/08/2026 16:25:48