BA.3413.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3413 OF 2026 Sohel Firoz Shaikh .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Mateen Shaikh a/w. Mr. Ansar Tamboli, Mr. Hassan Siddiqui and Ms. Muskan Shaikh, Advocates for Applicant.  Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent - State. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent - State. 2. This is an Application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking bail in connection with C.R.No.415 of 2026 registered with Nashik Road Police Station, District Nashik for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. 2.1. The Applicant before me is a young offender aged 20 years old and has been arraigned as Accused No. 3 in the present case. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.07.2026, the Anti-Gunda Squad received secret information that a person was likely to come to Maldhakka Road for the purpose of selling a country-made pistol (“Gauthi Katta”). Pursuant to the said information, the Complainant - 1 of 9 BA.3413.2026.doc Rakesh Mahadu Raut, constituted and arranged a raiding team. Acting upon the said information, the raiding team proceeded to the spot and noticed a suspicious person allegedly showing a “Gauthi Katta” to three (3) other persons. The raiding team immediately intercepted the said persons and apprehended them. However, one of the persons managed to flee from the spot. However two other persons were apprehended along with the present Applicant - Accused No. 3. 2.2. It is the case of the prosecution that upon conducting a personal search of the apprehended accused persons in the presence of two police officers, a country-made pistol (“Gauthi Katta”) along with two live cartridges was recovered from Accused No. 1. Thereafter, the recovered articles were produced before two panch witnesses and a detailed panchanama of the seizure and recovery was prepared. 2.3. It is prosecution case that the country-made pistol had been purchased by Accused No. 1 from one Manoj Dogle, who has been arraigned as Accused No. 5 in the present crime. Hence, accused persons were found in breach of the prohibitory order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nashik City, under Section 37(1)(3) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered against five (5) accused persons including the present Applicant for illegally obtaining and possessing a country-made pistol (“Gauthi Katta”) and two cartridges without any valid licence for the purpose of 2 of 9 BA.3413.2026.doc sale. The Applicant was arrested on 04.07.2026 along with the other co-accused persons and has remained in custody thereafter. 3. Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant would submit that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He would submit that no recovery has been effected at the instance of the present Applicant - Accused No.3. In fact, the recovery of the country-made pistol and two cartridges was effected at the instance of Accused No.1. He would therefore submit that the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Arms Act, 1959, is not made out against the present Applicant. He would further submit that insofar as the role attributed to the present Applicant is concerned, there is no specific or substantive role assigned to him in the commission of the offence. He would submit that considering that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is 3 years no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the Applicant incarcerated any further. 3.1. He would further submit that Applicant has no criminal antecedents to his discredit. He is a young boy aged about 20 years and is the sole earning member of his family. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, he would urge that the present Application be allowed and the Applicant be released on bail. 3 of 9 BA.3413.2026.doc 4. Ms. Rao, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State would vehemently oppose the present Application. She would submit that the role of Applicant as well as that of the other accused persons is clearly attributed in the FIR. She would submit that Applicant was present when Accused No.1 was displaying the country-made pistol to the other co-accused persons for sale. 4.1. She would submit that the material placed on record prima facie indicates involvement of Applicant in commission of the alleged crime, particularly in view of the recovery effected from Accused No.1. She would submit that the nature and gravity of the offence also deserve consideration as possession and use of illegal arms and ammunition may facilitate the commission of further offences. 4.2. She would further submit that the possibility of Applicant repeating or committing similar offences by using firearms, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding cannot be ruled out. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, she would urge that the present Application be rejected in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Rao, learned APP for Respondent - State and with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by both the learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the Court. 4 of 9 BA.3413.2026.doc 6. It is settled law that a Court while deciding a Bail Application has to keep in mind the principal rule of bail which is to ascertain whether the accused is likely to appear before the court for trial. There are other broad parameters also like gravity of offence, likelihood of accused repeating the offence while on bail, whether he would influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, his antecedents which are required to be considered in such cases. 7. Prima facie, it seen that Applicant - Accused No. 3 is implicated in the present crime on allegation of sale of illegal weapon. However, upon perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the Applicant was merely present at the spot of the incident. Further, recovery of one country-made pistol and two cartridges was made from Accused No. 1 and no recovery whatsoever is made from present Applicant. Thus, at this prima facie stage material on record does not disclose commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Arms Act, 1959 by Applicant. It is also significant to note that no specific role has been attributed to Accused No. 3 in the FIR either. 8. Further, it is also necessary to take into consideration the young age of the Applicant, who is 20 years old. Applicant also has no criminal antecedents to his discredit. These circumstances, coupled with the absence of any specific role attributed to him and the fact that no recovery has been effected at his instance, deserve due 5 of 9 BA.3413.2026.doc consideration while deciding present Bail Application. 9. Considering Applicant’s age, if he is enlarged on bail Court is hopeful that his family will undoubtedly do their duty to make every effort and attempt to reform and aid the Applicant in leading a reformed life while on bail rather than keep him in prison and expose him to criminal outlook and life in prison. However on the flip side, if a chance is given to the Applicant because of his young age by enlarging him on bail, there is a possibility that he will be remorseful and repent in retrospect. This is a chance required to be taken by the Court because punishment has to be believed to be inflicted for a reformative result rather than being punitive in nature. 10. Undoubtedly the trial will determine the complicity of Applicant in the offence. While considering Bail Application in such facts, Court feels that reform and rehabilitation of the under trial accused needs to be considered especially when age of the accused person is young so that he gets an opportunity / or is given an opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and earn his livelihood honorably from the perspective of social integration. This is a chance which the Court must take considering the young age of accused person. The age of the Applicant is very young. If the Applicant is incarcerated in prison further, there is every possibility that he might lose faith in the institution and society at large and may tread the path of criminality or 6 of 9 BA.3413.2026.doc would waste his life. Incarceration in prison exposes many youth to abuse as is shown statistically. 11. There are several harms of incarceration which are inflicted disproportionately on the youth. This is the reason why Court feels that any / every semblance of a chance towards a reformative approach in punishment should be adopted, especially in the case of young offenders. Hence every opportunity or to that extent risk should be constructively taken by the Court in the case of young offenders – accused before committing such accused to further custody and give such accused an opportunity to become a good citizen in the Society. These observations are only in the view of the young age of the Applicant before me and it is only a means to explore an alternative to incarceration so that the Applicant can become a good citizen. 12. Hence, in view of my aforesaid prima facie observations and findings, Bail Application is allowed subject to the following conditions:- 13. Hence, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- (1) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with C.R.No. 415 of 2026; (2) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on 7 of 9 BA.3413.2026.doc furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) with one or two surety of the like amount; (3) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at concerned Police Station, once every month on the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. until commencement of trial; (4) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order; (5) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (6) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (7) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as applicable; and (8) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation 8 of 9 BA.3413.2026.doc of bail granted to the Applicant. 14. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made hereinabove in this order. 15. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 9 of 9 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.16 13:10:38 +0530