-1- 902-BA-1693-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1693 OF 2026 SHAHARUKH SANDU SAYYAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...... Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Akshara Sharad Madake APP for Respondent - State : Mr. D. J. Patil ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 20th AUGUST 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocate for applicant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent - State. 2. The present application for regular bail is filed by the applicant, who is arraigned as accused in FIR bearing Crime No. 0289 of 2026, dated 20th July, 2026, registered with Waluj Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (City), for offences punishable under Sections 122 and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is stated to be based on FIR dated 20th July, 2026, lodged by Police Constable Raju Fulkar, attached to Waluj Police Station, alleging that, in the intervening night of 19th July, 2026 and 20th July, 2026, when the informant 2026:BHC-AUG:38133 -2- 902-BA-1693-2026 along with other police personnel was on patrolling duty, he received secret information and visited Jikthan, where they found five persons in suspicious condition. When the search of the said persons was carried out, accused Rahul Gaikwad was found in possession of one knife and therefore, an offence under Section 122 read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act came to be registered against all the said five persons. 4. During the course of investigation, it is alleged that when the scrutiny of mobile phone of accused Siddhant Dhanedar was conducted, there was a photograph of a country-made pistol was found in the said mobile phone. When accused Siddhant Dhanedar was interrogated in respect of the said photograph, it is alleged that he disclosed that the said pistol was handed over to the present applicant with the help of co-accused Rahul Gaikwad. The investigation was therefore conducted in respect of the illegal possession of the firearm. During the said investigation, the present applicant was apprehended and a country-made pistol was found in his possession. He then made a disclosure that accused Sachin Ghorpade is the owner of said pistol and he had supplied the said pistol to present applicant. The recovery of said pistol was made from the possession of the present applicant, and accordingly, offences under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the -3- 902-BA-1693-2026 Arms Act was added to the original FIR. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the offence alleged against the present applicant is not in respect of the main offence, but is only in respect of possessing the arm without a licence. She further submits that the offence levelled against the applicant is under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, and that the minimum punishment for the said offence is two years and the maximum punishment is five years. She argues that the present applicant has been arrested on 20th July 2026 and since then, he has been in custody. She therefore submits that the applicant has sufficiently undergone custody and during his custody he has cooperated with the investigating agency. The recovery of the arm has already been effected and therefore there is no reason why the applicant's custody should be continued. 6. Per contra, learned APP argues that the illegal arm has been possessed by the present applicant and has also been recovered from his possession. Admittedly, there is no licence available with the present applicant for possessing the same. In presence of such direct evidence against the present applicant, the involvement of the present applicant is therefore established. He further argues that, one of the accused, who has actually procured -4- 902-BA-1693-2026 the said arms and sold the same to co-accused Sachin Ghorpade and have even provided the same to the present applicant. He is still absconding. His arrest for the purpose of effective investigation of the present crime is necessary. He submits that, if the present applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may tip off the absconding accused and accordingly the accused will not be available for the purpose of investigation. 7. I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant as well as the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State. The principles governing the exercise of discretion in granting bail are quite settled. The Court is required to consider the gravity and seriousness of the offence and the accusation. The strength of the prima facie material, the punishment prescribed for the offence along with the stage of investigation, are also prime considerations while deciding bail application. The accusation of unauthorized possession of arm is undoubtedly serious. The recovery attributed to the applicant constitutes prima facie material connecting him with the offence under the Arms Act and cannot be disregarded at this stage. At the same time, the seriousness of the accusation is one factor and must be considered along with the corresponding circumstances bearing upon the necessity of continued pre-trial detention. The prosecution itself -5- 902-BA-1693-2026 does not allege that the present applicant was present along with the five suspicious persons, who were intercepted during the original patrolling duty. Indeed, the order of the learned Sessions Judge itself clearly records that the present applicant has no concern with the occurrence of the original offence, which attracted Sections 122 and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and that his implication arose later during the investigation of the offence under the Arms Act. 8. The country-made pistol alleged to have been in the applicant's possession has already been seized. The prosecution may legitimately continue its investigation into the origin and chain of supply of the weapon. However, on the material presently shown, the fact that such investigation remains pending or that one absconding accused is yet to be arrested does not, by itself, make further custodial detention of the present applicant indispensable. The alleged offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) is triable by a Magistrate and is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years. The applicant has been in custody since 20th July, 2026. Nothing has been placed before the Court to indicate any criminal antecedents. His attendance and cooperation can be secured by time-bound reporting conditions. -6- 902-BA-1693-2026 9. On a cumulative consideration of the nature of the accusation, the prima facie recovery, the applicant's distinct role, the seizure already effected, the punishment prescribed, the period of custody undergone and the absence of any antecedents against the applicant, these are considerations which operate in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant - Shaharukh Sandu Sayyad shall be released on bail in Crime No. 0289 of 2026 registered with Waluj Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (City), for offences punishable under Sections 122 and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall co-operate in the investigation. The applicant shall attend the trial Court on every date fixed, unless their attendance is specifically exempted. b) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any -7- 902-BA-1693-2026 prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. c) The applicant shall furnish his current residential addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and the trial Court within seven days of release, intimate any change forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further investigation is required. d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if they possess passports, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of their release. e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. g) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. (iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale