MOHAMMAD JAVEED GULAM MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
ABA/1439/2026 · 2026-09-11
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8438 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8438 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
933-ABA-1439-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 933 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1439 OF 2026 Mohammad Javeed Gulam Mohammad Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Another Mr. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3361 OF 2026 IN ABA/1439/2026 Umar Haji Ismail Ziya Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Another Mr. G. K. Muneshwar, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondents
CORAM :R.M. JOSHI, J DATE :SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 P. C. :
1. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with C.R. No. 506/2026 registered with Police Station Nanalpeth, District Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 351, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. First information report indicates that on 07.07.2026 at about 03.30 pm an incident had occurred in which present Applicant and co- accused said to have caused assault on informant. There is allegation with regard to causing of the said assault with axe and iron rod.
3.
Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that this is a case of 2026:BHC-AUG:42087
933-ABA-1439-2026.odt false implication. In order to support said submissions, he drew attention of the Court to the FIR lodged by Khamisa Salman Abed Gulam Mohammad indicating that some incident had occurred on that day, however, presence of the Applicant at the spot is not seen. He relied upon the photographs of his hotel indicating that on or around at the time of occurrence of the aid incident, he was present in the hotel. He further submits that admittedly parties are at inimical terms, as such, false implication exists. It is his submission that having regard to the said fact liberty of the Applicant deserves to be protected. 4. Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant opposed application. Learned APP submits that since submission was made on the last date of hearing with regard to plea of alibi by the Applicant, investigating officer along with panch witnesses visited the hotel of the Applicant in order to find out as to whether there is any substance in the said plea. He drew attention of the Court to the panchnama recorded indicating that the CCTV footage of the relevant day is not available. He further drew attention of the Court to the fact that all CCTV cameras installed in the said hotel are not in working condition. It is his submission that there are statements of witnesses indicating involvement of the Applicant in this crime and as such, owing to the nature of crime, use of weapon, this is not the case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Page 2 of 3
933-ABA-1439-2026.odt
5. Prima facie perusal of the FIR indicates that in respect of the same incident occurred on 07.07.2026, two different reports came to be lodged. There is also no dispute about the fact that the parties are at logger head. Needless to say that the previous disputes on one hand becomes reason for false implication so also in certain cases it becomes reason for commission of crime. Herein this case, prima facie perusal of the record indicates that the incident in question has been witnessed by not less than four witnesses. The use of weapons is seen in the crime. The informant sustained serious injuries.
Even if accepting the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that for some time on that day he was present in the hotel, as per the panchnama drawn in presence of the panch witnesses, the spot of the incident is away at a minute distance from the said hotel. It is thus practically possible for the Applicant to leave hotel and to be present on the spot. Since there is no conclusive/reliable material on record to accept plea of alibi, this Court finds no reason to discard this evidence collected during the course of investigation. As such, having regard to the nature of offence, involvement of the weapon, requirement of recovery of the same, no case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail. 6. In view of the above, Application stands dismissed. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani