APPLN-1189.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1189 OF 2026 1.Siraj S/o Mohammad Yunus Qureshi 2. Mohammad Kaif S/o Mohammad Yunus Qureshi ...Applicants VERSUS 1.The State of Maharashtra 2. The Investigation Officer ...Respondents Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent-State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 0066 of 2026, registered on 07.02.2026, at the Hingoli City Police Station, District Hingoli for offences punishable under sections 109, 118(1), 118(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, and 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the motive behind the alleged incident originates from a dispute two months prior between the father of co-accused Abbas Qureshi and informant’s paternal uncle i.e. Latif Sayyed Mehboob. As per the First Information Report lodged on 07/02/2026 by the informant i.e. Sayyed Wasim Sayyed Salim his brother, Sayyed Kalim was summoned near Mehrajulum Masjid on 06.02.2026. 2026:BHC-AUG:41331 APPLN-1189.odt Upon reaching the spot, the informant found his brother lying injured with wounds on his back and chest. It is alleged that co-accused Abbas Qureshi was armed with an iron rod, while co-accused Maifuz Qureshi Shaikh, Shaikh Adil Shaik Anwar Qureshi, Juned Anwar Qureshi, Shoib Anwar Qureshi were also present along with meat-cutting knives. Specific overt acts are attributed to co-accused Abbas Qureshi of delivering a blow to the head with an iron rod, causing severe injuries to informant, whereas the other accused allegedly assaulted the informant on his waist and thigh. On these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against five named accused. Upon investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants were not named in the initial First Information Report lodged on 07.02.2026 regarding the alleged incident dated 6.02.2026. It is submitted that the applicants were subsequently named as accused armed with a Khanjir only through a supplementary statement of the informant. The statement was recorded as an afterthought, solely to falsely implicate the applicants and absolve the co-accused Maifuz Qureshi. It is submitted that the eyewitnesses were acquainted with the original accused persons, eliminating any possibility of wrong identification at the first instance. Additionally, as the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed and no recovery remains to be made from the applicants, their APPLN-1189.odt custodial interrogation is unnecessary. 4. Learned APP opposed the grant of any relief to the applicants. He submitted that although the applicants were not named in the initial First Information Report, the statement of witness Sayyed Latif clearly reveals that applicant no. 1 and 2 assaulted deceased Kalim with a Khanjir. He further submitted that as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the chest injuries sustained by the injured were fatal in nature and sufficient to cause death. He contended that the injuries reflected in the Post Mortem Report directly corroborate the specific allegations made against present applicants, thereby it is a prima facie case against the applicants and custodial interrogation of the present applicants is necessary. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of the charge-sheet, that the applicants were not named in the initial FIR does not automatically make them eligible for pre-arrest bail. Eye-witness Sayyed Latif clearly identified applicants no. 1 and 2 as the assailants who attacked the victim with a Khanjir. This testimony is corroborated by medical evidence, including the Post Mortem Report and the Medical Officer’s opinion, confirming that the fatal chest injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Moreover, the filing of the charge-sheet does not dilute the heinous nature of the crime or create an absolute right to pre- arrest bail in the presence of strong prima facie material. In view of the APPLN-1189.odt seriousness of the alleged crime, the direct roles assigned, the deadly weapon used, and the medical evidence, there is no merit in the present application and the relief cannot be granted to present applicants. 6. In view of the above discussion, the application for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed. 7. It is clarified that above observations are prima facie in nature and would not affect the parties during trial. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani