35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.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. 1355 OF 2026 1. Imtiyaz Ahmed Riyaz Ahmed; 2. Aafique Anjum Ashfaque Ahmad; 3. Faheem Ahmad Iqbal Ahmad; and 4. Shaikh Arif Ibrahim .. Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Javed Patel and Mr. Parth H. Zaveri, Advocates i/by Momin Musaddique Ahmed for Applicants.  Ms. Mankuwar M. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent – State.  Mr. Sandeev B. Deore, Advocate appearing through video conferencing a/w. Ms. Suchita J. Pawar and Mr. Aditya S. Deore, Advocates for Respondent No.3.  PI – Mr. Dattatrya Choudhari, EOW, Nashik Rural present. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate for Applicants; Ms. Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent – State and Mr. Deore, learned Advocate appearing through video conferencing for Respondent No.3. 2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking regular bail in connection with C.R.No.181 of 2025 registered with Pawarwadi Police Station, District Nashik for the offences punishable under 1 of 7 35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 340(2) and of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 3. Accused No.3 and Accused No.5 who are arraigned as Applicant Nos.2 and 4 in present Bail Application No.1355 of 2026 are before the Court. Pursuant to directions contained in the order dated 24.08.2026, the same order stands duly complied with. The prosecution has filed a detailed Affidavit as per directions contained in paragraph No.6 of the order. 4. I have heard Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Applicants and Ms. Deshmukh, learned Additional PP appearing on behalf of the State and its functionaries. Both of them have argued the present matter gracefully before the Court and answered all the queries put by the Court. The Court appreciates the conduct of both learned Senior Advocates in conducting this matter at the bar. 5. At the outset, it is seen that insofar as Accused No.3 is concerned, he has been appointed on 02.09.2021 and his appointment has been approved by the Education Officer on 29.09.2024. The case of the prosecution qua this Applicant is that he was working in another school simultaneously which was known as Jamhoor High School. The material which is placed on record by Applicant shows that he had infact resigned from that school on 30.08.2021 and his resignation 2 of 7 35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc letter was accepted by the said school. Such documentary evidence is appended at page Nos.193 and 194 of the Application. The prosecution has not made any investigation in that regard. However, the case of the prosecution vehemently argued by Ms. Deshmukh is to the effect that Applicant accused person had worked in two schools simultaneously and therefore he would not be entitled to receive salary from two different schools and therefore he should be denied bail. 6. Insofar as the issue regarding Applicant's resignation letter is concerned, that has not been investigated. According to Ms. Deshmukh, the case of prosecution is based on the statements of the Headmaster which was recorded and the muster roll which the prosecution has in all fairness placed before the Court to show that during the contentious period Applicant accused had infact worked in the present school. 7. Insofar as the prima facie stage for bail is concerned, the aforesaid material is good enough for the Court to decide the present Application. Needless to state that the complicity of the Applicant in the crime as also the case of the prosecution to the extent that the muster roll has been fabricated and there is fabrication of record, can undoubtedly be proved at the time of trial. 8. Ms. Deshmukh has also argued the fact that it is incongruous for an Aapplicant to remain salaryless for a substantial period of time. 3 of 7 35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc However, for the consideration of bail that may not be relevant for me since it would be a matter of evidence. In that view of the matter, Applicant No.2 namely Accused No.3 has made out a case for grant of bail. 9. Insofar as Accused No.5 who is Applicant No.4 before me is concerned, the record shows that on 02.08.2019, he was appointed and his approval was granted on 16.07.2024. Both these documents are appended at page Nos.308 and 224 of the Application. The muster roll of the said Applicant has been produced by the prosecution in all fairness before the Court in the additional Affidavit which prima facie shows that during the contentious period, he was infact working in the present school. However, the prosecution case as argued by Ms. Deshmukh is that he has simultaneously worked in another school, but that case is prima facie refuted on the basis of material evidence placed on record to show that the second school where the Applicant was employed namely Crescent School between 10.07.2019 to 31.03.2020 was a night school where the Applicant was offering, giving his services from 08:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Though Ms. Deshmukh would otherwise argue that Crescent School also functioned during the day, however, the case of Applicant is prima facie clear about he having served in the night school. Investigation in that regard ought to have been made in order to refute the case of the Applicant. That not having been made, the benefit of doubt for the purpose of grant of bail will have to be 4 of 7 35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc given to the Applicant concerned. Hence, Applicant No.4 namely Accused No.5 has made out a case for grant of bail. 10. One of the important strong circumstances argued by Ms. Deshmukh is that insofar as the register which has been produced by the prosecution is concerned, her instructions are that the said register is also forged and fabricated document. This submission will have to be accepted with a lot of circumspect only because it is not the signature of the accused persons appearing on the said register alone, but it is appearing alongwith other teachers who are not infact indicted in the present crime. Nevertheless, the said submission of the prosecution is explicitly kept open for trial. 11. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and findings, Bail Application of Applicants is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) Applicant No.2 – Aafaque Anjum Ashfaque Ahmad is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with CR. No.181 of 2025; (ii) Applicant No.4 – Shaikh Arif Ibrahim is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with CR. No.181 of 2025; (iii) Applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen 5 of 7 35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc Thousand only) each with one or two sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer at Pawarwadi 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 and thereafter shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court; (iv) Applicants shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted. Applicants shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail; (v) Applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicants shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of their current residential address and mobile telephone number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating Officer of any change in their residential address or mobile telephone number, as and when such change occurs; and 6 of 7 35(1).BA.1355.2026.2026.doc (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the Applicants. 12. 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. 13. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 7 of 7 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.21 15:25:37 +0530