-1- BA-1564-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO.1564 OF 2026 Abdul Nabi Hanif Patel, Age : 32 years, Occu. : At present in jail, R/o. Santoshi Mata Rickshaw Stop, Raza Colony, Mehrun, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. … Applicant (Accused) Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Investigation Officer, Bhusawal Bazaar Peth Police Station, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. … Respondent ..… Mr. Himmatsinh D. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for Respondent/State. ..… CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 09th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. I-14 of 2025 registered with Bhusawal Bazaar Peth Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 61(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3/25, 7/25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The applicant is accused No.2. He was arrested on 12 January 2025 and is in custody since then. 2026:BHC-AUG:42012 -2- BA-1564-2026 Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed on 9th April 2025. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10th January 2025 at about 7.15 a.m., deceased Tehrin Ahmed Nasir Ahmed Sheikh had gone to D.D. Super Cold Drinks and Tea House at Jam Mohalla, Bhusawal. It is alleged that certain accused persons, armed with firearms, entered the tea stall and fired at the deceased, resulting in firearm injuries and his death. According to the prosecution, the incident was the outcome of a conspiracy amongst the accused. The FIR was registered on the same day. The applicant was not named in the FIR. His complicity is alleged to have surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of the CCTV footage and statements subsequently recorded. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that neither the FIR nor the initial version of the incident attributes any overt act to the applicant. His name surfaced subsequently and the material relied upon by the prosecution essentially relates to his identification in the CCTV footage. It is submitted that there is no recovery of any firearm or other incriminating article from the applicant. It is further submitted that accused Nos.5, 6 and 7, namely Abid Aslam Patel, Salman Abdul Majid Patel and Wasim Majid Patel, have already been released on bail. According to the -3- BA-1564-2026 learned counsel, the allegations against some of the said accused are not on a footing materially different from those against the applicant and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has remained incarcerated since 12th January 2025, investigation is over, charge-sheet has been filed, trial has not made substantial progress and the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 4. Learned APP opposes the application. It is submitted that the offence is grave and concerns a pre-planned murder committed by use of firearms. The prosecution relies upon the CCTV footage from the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution, a person wearing a blue jacket is seen in the company of the other assailants, entering the tea stall and thereafter emerging from it, and is also seen with a firearm. The said person has been identified as the present applicant in the statements recorded during investigation. It is therefore submitted that the case of the applicant cannot be equated with the co-accused who have been released on bail merely because the applicant was not named in the FIR. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The accusation is undoubtedly serious. The nature of the offence, however, cannot by itself conclude the -4- BA-1564-2026 consideration of an application for bail. The Court is required to examine, prima facie, the nature of the material against the particular accused, his role, period of incarceration, stage of the proceedings, possibility of the trial being concluded within a reasonable period and the position of similarly situated co-accused. 6. It is true that the applicant was not named in the FIR. That circumstance, by itself, is not decisive because the investigation may legitimately reveal the involvement of a person not initially named. The material subsequently collected by the investigating agency, therefore, cannot be ignored merely because the applicant's name does not occur in the FIR. In the present case, the prosecution relies upon the CCTV footage and the statements identifying the person wearing a blue jacket as the applicant. The CCTV script, as relied upon by the prosecution, indicates the presence of such person with the other assailants immediately before and after the incident and also refers to a firearm being carried by him. Thus, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to accept the submission that there is absolutely no incriminating material against the applicant. 7. However, the Court is presently concerned with bail and not with recording a finding as to guilt. The evidentiary value of the identification of the applicant from the CCTV footage, the precise -5- BA-1564-2026 acts attributable to him and the extent to which the prosecution can establish common intention or conspiracy are matters which would necessarily be tested at the trial. No firearm is shown to have been recovered from the applicant. There is also no material placed before this Court to indicate any criminal antecedents of the applicant. 8. The plea of parity also deserves consideration, though parity in matters of bail is not to be applied mechanically merely because another accused has been released. What is material is whether the nature of the accusation, role attributed and incriminating material against the accused seeking bail are broadly comparable. Accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 have already been enlarged on bail. The charge-sheet itself attributes to accused No.5 the role of keeping watch upon the deceased at the tea stall, whereas accused No.6 is alleged to have made available the motorcycle used by other accused. Their release on bail does not create an automatic right in favour of the present applicant, but it is nevertheless a relevant circumstance while considering whether his continued pre-trial incarceration remains necessary. 9. More importantly, the applicant is in custody since 12th January 2025. He has thus, undergone incarceration of nearly one year and eight months. Investigation has long since been -6- BA-1564-2026 completed and the charge-sheet was filed on 9th April 2025. The prosecution proposes to examine about 40 witnesses. There is nothing before this Court to indicate that the trial is likely to conclude in the immediate future. Continued detention cannot assume the character of punishment before determination of guilt, particularly when the presence of the applicant at the trial can be secured by appropriate conditions. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that parity is a relevant consideration in bail matters, though it cannot be applied as an inflexible formula and the Court must examine the role and material attributable to each accused independently. Tested on that principle, although the material against the applicant is not identical to that against accused Nos.5, 6 and 7, their release on bail is a circumstance which cannot altogether be ignored. When this circumstance is considered cumulatively with the applicant's incarceration since January 2025, completion of investigation, absence of recovery from him, absence of criminal antecedents and the time likely to be consumed in conclusion of the trial, further pre-trial detention of the applicant does not appear necessary. 11. Needless to clarify that the observations made herein are confined to consideration of the present bail application and are -7- BA-1564-2026 prima facie in nature. The learned trial Judge shall decide the case uninfluenced by any of these observations. 12. In the circumstances, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant - Abdul Nabi Hanif Patel shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. I-14 of 2025 registered with Bhusawal Bazaar Peth Police Station, District Jalgaon, on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (iv) The applicant shall attend the proceedings before the Trial Court on every date unless exempted by the Trial Court for sufficient cause and shall cooperate with the expeditious conclusion of the trial. (v) The applicant shall not enter the territorial limits of Bhusawal City, except for attending the proceedings before the Trial Court or reporting to the investigating agency, for a -8- BA-1564-2026 period of six months from the date of his release. Before his release, he shall furnish to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court the address at which he will reside during the said period and his mobile number, and shall intimate any change thereof. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court and shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court. (vii) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail. (viii) The Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale