P.H. JAYANI 918 BA1812.2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1812 OF 2026 Imran Munna Qureshi …. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Zaid A. Qureshi for the Applicant. Ms. S.K. Gajare, APP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Neha Hnade, PSI, Sanpada Police Station, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in Cr.No.10/2025 registered with Sanpada Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1949 on the Report dated 03.01.2025 filed by Mr. Sameer Kadam, informant. 3. The prosecution case is that on 03.01.2025, at about 9:50 a.m., at Sanpada, two unknown persons came on a bike. The pillion rider on the bike fired 5 bullets at the injured-Rajaram Toke who was present in his Car. One bullet hit on his right side stomach and one at the right elbow. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. During investigation, police recorded the statements of the witnesses including supplementary statement of the injured. Investigation revealed that, at the time of the incident, P.H. JAYANI 918 BA1812.2026.DOC the injured was doing a vegetable and fodder business in partnership with Mr. Telange and Mr. Wadkar. Mr. Telange used to give some money of the business to Santosh Gawali (Accused No.1). Meanwhile, Mr. Telange stopped paying money to A1. However, A1 misunderstood that the injured was responsible for stoppage of the money. Therefore, A1 along with present applicant came at the spot together and, the applicant fired at the injured. 4. Mr. Qureshi, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the Report. No test identification parade was conducted to ascertain and establish the identity of the applicant for the purpose of investigation and trial. The recovery of the Gun allegedly used in the offence is not only planted but also not reliable. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. 5. In contrast, Ms. Gajare, the learned APP submitted that there is sufficient material against the applicant indicating his involvement in this crime. The applicant has criminal antecedents. Hence, the bail be refused. 6. I have considered these submissions. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicant is not named in the Report. However, in his supplementary statement, the injured has given the name of A1 as the person who was riding the bike along with the offender who had fired at him. Since A-1 stopped getting money from the injured’s business, A1 had motive to commit the crime. The learned APP submitted that A1 himself had disclosed that the applicant was the pillion with him who had fired at the informant. This statement is not admissible. However, as per the Report of the C.A., the firearm recovered by the applicant is the same by which the seized bullets were fired at the injured. Page 2 of 3 P.H. JAYANI 918 BA1812.2026.DOC 7. In the wake of the above, there is a prima facie case against the applicant of having committed the alleged offence. Excluding this case, the applicant has ten criminal antecedents. In seven cases, he has been either acquitted or discharged, as submitted by Mr. Qureshi. However, one case of the offence of murder and one under Arms Act, are still pending against him. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. As a result, the Bail Application is liable to be rejected and, is rejected, accordingly. 9. It is clarified that the observations made in the present Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the case. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) . PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.09.18 11:02:28 +0530