29-ABA-1276-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1276 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3132 OF 2026 Sohel Khan @ Laddu (name as per FIR) Sohel Fahim Farooqui s/o Fahim Farooqui (name as per AADHAR Card) ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1684 OF 2026 Osama Khan Kaleem Khan ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1009 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2393 OF 2026 Rahil Siddiqui Shakeel Siddiqui ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 875 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2299 OF 2026 Khan Minhaj Abdul Jalil Khan ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 743 OF 2026 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1796 OF 2026 Meraj Khan Jalil Khan ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT 1 / 6 2026:BHC-AUG:42435 29-ABA-1276-26.odt WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1400 OF 2026 Abdul Baseer Abdul Lateef ..APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT .... Mr. N.S. Ghanekar and Mr. A.K. Bhosle, Advocates for applicants in respective applications Ms. P.J. Bharad, A.P.P. for respondent – State Mr. S.G. Laddha, Advocate for Assist to A.P.P. in all applications .... CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 98 of 2026 registered with City Chowk Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The F.I.R. indicates that according to the informant, applicant – Mehraz Khan wanted to eliminate the informant. Therefore, he instructed his nephew – Nadim Khan to keep an eye on him. On 26th March, 2026 the informant and his friend Abul went to ACP Office in connection with prohibition proceeding. When he was going towards his house at Mill Corner, he found Nadim keeping an eye on him. When the informant stopped near City Chowk Police Station for sometime, Nadim called someone on phone by pointing towards him. When he was proceeding on his scooty alongwith his friend, the 2 / 6 29-ABA-1276-26.odt applicants and co-accused came infront of his scooty. There is allegation against Mohammad KhanMehraj Khan that he assaulted the informant on his head with an iron rod. While assaulting he said that his father and uncle asked him to come back only after killing the informant. There is further allegation that other applicants also, with the help of baseball bat and stump caused assault on him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this is a clear case of false implication. There is allegation against 8-10 persons of causing assault on the informant. However, he sustained only two simple injuries of contused lacerated wound. In support of this contention, he drew attention of the Court to the injury certificate indicating causing two injuries on occipital region of the informant. According to them, there is no evidence on record in order to show the applicants caused assault on the informant. In support of his submission, reference is made to video transcription of the incident. Thus, in view of the same and having regard to the charge-sheet, custodial interrogation of the applicant would not be necessary. 4. Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed grant of any relief on the ground that there are allegations against the accused persons and they being part of an unlawful assembly and therefore, responsible for act of each of other. Learned A.P.P. drew attention of the Court towards the CCTV footage, so also statement of PSI, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. According to her, said statement is in support to show that the 3 / 6 29-ABA-1276-26.odt informant was assaulted by all the accused persons including the applicants. Having regard to the nature of assault, according to her, this is not a case to protect liberty of the applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the informant, drew attention of the Court to the medical papers placed on record before this Court in support of his submission that the though injury certificate in the charge-sheet indicates causing only two injuries, there are number of other injuries caused on the person of the informant. It is his submission that having regard to the medical papers, it would be clear that there are number of assaults on the person of the informant. He also made a grievance with regard to the manner in which the investigation has been carried out. According to him, as far as applicant – Meraj Khan in ABA No. 743 of 2026 is concerned, it is his contention that by flouting order and breaching condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 05th May, 2026, he has entered in the jurisdiction of the prohibited area and therefore he is not entitled for the relief. The allegation in respect of applicant – Khan Minhaj in ABA No. 875 of 2026 to the effect that he has failed to attend the concerned police station. He further pointed out that there are two non-cognizable complaints lodged against both of them. 6. Learned counsel for these applicants submits that there is no breach of any condition of the order and that he would substantiate the same. 7. At this stage, the Court is required to see as to whether the F.I.R. itself is truthful on the face of record. There is allegation made in the F.I.R. that 4 / 6 29-ABA-1276-26.odt about 8-10 persons caused assault on the informant. The injury certificate placed on record however indicates, that the informant sustained two injuries on occipital region which are attributable to accused who is already arrested. So far as seven injuries pointed from the medical papers placed on record, they are abrasions and not attributable to use of any weapons. Secondly, the allegations of the informant about actual assault being caused by more than one person is not supported by CCTV footage as well as video of incidents, which is part of record. Said footage and transcription thereof clearly indicates attribution of causing assault by the arrested accused and not by others. Even though statement of the PSI is sought to be relied upon, same does not indicate any role attributed against the applicants of actual assault. Therefore, this Court finds no hesitation to confirm the interim relief granted to the applicants. 8. As far as applicant– Meraj Khan in ABA No. 743 of 2026 and applicant – Khan Minhaj in ABA No. 875 of 2026 are concerned, since learned counsel for these applicants seeks time to place on record appropriate material to show that there is no breach of condition of the initial order passed by this Court, no order is passed to their extent for the time being. It is clarified that appropriate order shall be passed with regard to the grievance made by learned counsel for the informant after hearing both sides. Hence, the order :- ORDER (I) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1276 of 2026 is allowed. (i) In the event of arrest of applicant – Sohel Khan @ Laddu alias Sohel Fahim Farooqui s/o Fahim Farooqui, in connection 5 / 6 29-ABA-1276-26.odt with Crime No. 98 of 2026 registered with City Chowk Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the like amount. (ii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when required. (iii) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (iv) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (v) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. (II) Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1009 of 2026, 1684 of 2026 and 1400 of 2026 are allowed. Interim relief granted in those matters stand confirmed. (III) All the pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. (IV) List Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 743 of 2026 and 875 of 2026 on 21st September, 2026. Interim relief granted therein to continue till then. (V) It is clarified that the Trial Court shall not get influenced by this order. ( R.M. JOSHI, J. ) SSD 6 / 6