1 16 ABA 679.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 679/2026 (Patel Fazil Kha Asif Kha Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Y. S. Sambre, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant/State. Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Sharma, Advocate for assist to prosecution. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 24/08/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 5/2026 registered with Police Station Akot Gramin, Dist. Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution story are that, on 06/01/2026 at around 02:00 p.m., the informant was urgently called by Istakh Patel and Javed Patel in front of Gram Panchayat, where he saw his uncle lying in a pool of blood. Upon enquiry, his uncle told him that Ubed Patel and Rajik @Kalu Patel assaulted him in the Mosque with a knife, on his face, stomach, back, chest and private parts. 2 16 ABA 679.26 On the way to the hospital, the victim revealed that Ubed Patel told him that he was being killed at the instance of Badrujama Adil, Raju Boche and Sanjay Bodkhe. Further Fasil Asif Kha and Faruq Asif Kha has assured him of his acquittal in the present crime. Based on this information, the first information report was registered. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, the role of the applicant is very minimal, only allegation as per the prosecution against the applicant is that he has assured the main assailant that he will secure his acquittal in the present crime. His name was disclosed by the deceased in his oral dying declaration to three witnesses. The deceased has taken the name of the applicant stating that Ubed Patel was assured by the applicant of his acquittal in the present crime. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the aforesaid three witnesses are interested witnesses and hence their statements cannot be relied upon. In the first information report, it is alleged that the name of the present applicant was disclosed by Ubed Patel 3 16 ABA 679.26 in the Mosque itself where the incident of assault has taken place, however the statements of eyewitnesses who were present in the Mosque do not reveal the name of the present applicant. Another eyewitness who is a minor has also not disclosed the name of the present applicant, though he was present in the Mosque. On the contrary, the said minor witness disclosed that at the behest of the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the accused No.1 assaulted the deceased. Considering the inconsistencies in the statements, the learned counsel submits that the applicant is neither involved in the conspiracy nor in the actual assault. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. So far as the motive which is attributed to the applicant is concerned, it cannot be considered since the said incident occurred prior to 7 years. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned APP and learned Senior counsel vehemently oppose the application and invited my attention to the statements of the witnesses, wherein the role of the present applicant is disclosed that he has assured the main assailant that he will secure his 4 16 ABA 679.26 acquittal. The statement of one independent witness Aathar Husen Altab Husen was also recorded on the same lines, wherein the deceased has disclosed the name of the applicant. They submitted that when there is a conspiracy, it is always hatched in secrecy and there cannot be any direct material so far as the conspiracy is concerned. There are also several calls between the applicant and accused Nos. 2, 6 and 7. 7. It was also submitted that this Court has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of Mohd. Badaruzzma Mohd. Adil and Sanjay s/o. Ramdas Bodkhe who are accused in the same crime. Their names have also been taken by the deceased in his dying declaration. Not only that, even the Supreme Court has confirmed the findings, as the applicant Mohd. Badaruzzma Mohd. Adil approached the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6001/2026, however, the same was withdrawn. Therefore, considering the fact that the applicant is involved in a conspiracy to commit murder, his custodial interrogation would be necessary to determine the truth. 5 16 ABA 679.26 8. I have considered the rival submissions. This court has granted interim protection to the applicant by order dated 31/07/2026. Today, I have heard the counsel of both the parties at length. After perusal of the first information report and various statements, admittedly so far as the witnesses, those who were present in the Mosque where the incident has occurred is concerned, those statements do not disclose the name of the present applicant. It further appears that when the deceased was being taken to the hospital at that time the deceased told three witnesses that the main assailant- Ubed Patel has told him that he is being killed at the behest of Mohd. Badaruzzma Mohd. Adil, Raju Goche and Sanjay Bodke and the present applicant has assured him that he will secure his acquittal in the present crime. These are three identical statements wherein the name of the applicant appears as the dying declaration was made to these witnesses by the deceased. 9. It is further to be noted that though call records are placed on record, however, in my opinion those are not helpful to the prosecution as there is no call between the main assailant and the applicant either before or after the 6 16 ABA 679.26 incident. No doubt, there are calls between the applicant and other accused person however, those calls took place a long time ago. 10. Be that as it may, the oral dying declaration which was made to three witnesses, prima-facie shows the involvement of the applicant. The custody of the applicant would be required so as to determine the truth and reveal the conspiracy. Further, this Court has already considered and appreciated the material before it, and after considering the material in paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9 has declined to grant anticipatory bail to co-accused which read as under:- “7. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the incident had occurred at about 2.00 p.m. on 06.01.2026 when the deceased was reading a book in the mosque. At that time, accused Ubed Patel @ Kalu Patel came from behind and assaulted the deceased by means of a knife on his cheek, stomach, back, chest and private parts. It is also revealed from the FIR that the deceased informed the complainant while he was being taken to the hospital that the applicants and other co-accused asked Ubed Patel to kill the deceased and also assured that Fazil Asif Khan and Farukh Asif Khan will get him acquitted. The case diary further reveals that there is a 7 16 ABA 679.26 statement of another witness on the same lines. He has stated that when the deceased was taken to the hospital in a car, the deceased said that this witness should tell Javed that Ubed Patel had told him that he has been assaulted at the behest of the present applicants and Raju Boche and that Fazil and Farukh will get Ubed Patel acquitted. Apart from him, there are other witnesses who also gave statements which are on the same lines. 8. Thus, prima facie, there is material in the form of dying declaration against the present applicants which shows their involvement in a serious crime like murder. 9. The deceased has been brutally assaulted in broad daylight, that too in a mosque. Therefore, various angles are required to investigated by the Investigating Officer which could be possible by custodial interrogation of the present applicants. So far as the submission of the learned Senior Counsels for the applicants that the applicants are reputed persons and there is no chance of them fleeing away from justice is concerned, as stated above, various angles are to be looked into by the Investigating Officer in such a serious crime and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants would be necessary.” Therefore, this Court has rejected the bail applications of 8 16 ABA 679.26 the co-accused on the basis of dying declaration of the deceased. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by one of the accused namely Mohd. Badaruzzma Mohd. Adil by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6001/2026, which was subsequently withdrawn. Even the present applicant’s name has been disclosed by the deceased in his dying declaration to three witnesses. 11. Considering the order of this Court dated 18/03/2026 and the order of the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The parameters to grant anticipatory bail are very limited. Hence, the application is rejected. 12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/08/2026 18:01:27