Mohammad Afsar Mohammad Umar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mohammad Afsar Mohammad Umar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Confirmation of the interim protection (pre-arrest protection) granted on 03.02.2025 to the applicant in ABA No. 114 of 2025, subject to conditions: attendance at the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer; no tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing of informant/witnesses; cooperation with investigation and trial-court proceedings; no contact or communication with the informant and no hindrance to the informant's business; violation entailing cancellation. The connected Criminal Application No. 428 of 2025 was partly allowed to the extent of assist to public prosecutor. The application stands disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim protection granted to the applicant by order dated 03.02.2025 in connection with Crime No. 274 of 2024 should stand confirmed, and whether any additional condition (given that the shops of the applicant and the informant are adjacent and there is a possibility of further assault/fight) ought to be imposed. +1 more

Court's answer

The interim protection granted by order dated 03.02.2025 stands confirmed, subject to conditions: (i) attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer; (ii) not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution nor influence the informant, witnesses and others concerned; (iii) cooperate with the investigation and in the proceedings before the trial Court; (iv) not contact the informant in any way and not involve himself in similar offences; (v) not communicate with the informant nor create any hurdle in the conduct of the informant's business. In the event of violation of any condition, the protection shall be liable to be cancelled.

Ratio / Principle

Criminal Application No. 428 of 2025 is partly allowed to the extent of assist to public prosecutor.

Key takeaways

Clarification that the observations made in the order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application, and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by those observations.obiter¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest protection confirmed — High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench (Arun R. Pedneker, J.; 10.02.2025) confirmed the interim protection granted on 03.02.2025 to Mohammad Afsar Mohammad Umar (67 years), who apprehended arrest in Crime No. 274 of 2024 dated 01.10.2024, Kranti Chowk Police Station, District Aurangabad, for offences under Ss. 109, 115(2), 118(2), 351(3), 189(2), 191(3), 190 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The interim order had noted that the grievous knife-assault allegations were against the other accused, that the applicant along with one co-accused allegedly assaulted the informant with a brick, and that the dispute arose over destruction of the common wall of their shops; the other main accused were in jail and a co-accused with an identical role had been granted bail. The applicant had attended the police station and cooperated with the investigation without any grievance from the APP. Interim protection stood confirmed subject to five conditions (police-station attendance as required by the IO; no tampering with or influencing of evidence/witnesses; cooperation with investigation and trial; no contact with the informant; no communication with or hindrance to the informant's business), breach entailing cancellation; observations confined to disposal of the ABA. Connected Criminal Application No. 428 of 2025 (Mohammad Yusuf Mohammad Haroon Mukati) partly allowed to the extent of assist to public prosecutor.

2025:BHC-AUG:3698

46

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

46 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2025

MOHAMMAD AFSAR MOHAMMAD UMAR VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Advocate for Applicant :

Mr. Imran Khan Guftar Khan Durrani APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. B. Patil

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2025 IN ABA/114/2025

MOHAMMAD YUSUF MOHAMMAD HAROON MUKATI VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

… Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pande Balraj Prakash APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. B. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. Imran Khan Guftar Khan Durrani

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 10.02.2025

P.C. :

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the assist to public prosecutor.

2

46

2] Criminal Application No.428 of 2025 is partly allowed to the extent of assist to public prosecutor.

3] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.274 of 2024, dated 01.10.2024, registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 115(2), 118(2), 351(3), 189(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

4] This court by order dated 03.02.2025 granted interim protection to the applicant considering the submissions and reasons at paras 3 and 4, as under:

“3] The grievous allegations are against the other accused that they assaulted the informant by means of knife. As regards the allegations against the applicant, who is of 67 years age, is that he along with one other-co-accused has assaulted the informant by means of brick. The dispute arose between the parties on the count of destruction of the common wall of their shops.

4] Considering the role of the applicant in the present crime and considering the age of the applicant as 67 years and considering that the other main accused are in jail and the co-accused whose role is identical to the applicant, is granted bail, I deem it appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant.”

5] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has attended the concerned police station and co-operated with the investigation in terms of the order dated 03.02.2025. There is no grievance raised as regards

3

46

this aspect by the learned APP.

6] The learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the shops of the applicant and the informant are adjacent to one another and there is possibility of further assault / fight between them and an appropriate condition may be imposed for confirmation of the interim relief, if the court desires to grant the same.

7] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 03.02.2025 stands confirmed, on the following terms:

i] The applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

iv] The applicant shall not contact the informant in any way and involve himself in the similar offences.

4

46

v] The applicant shall not communicate with the informant and not to create any hurdle in conduct of business of the informant.

8] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

9] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

10] The application stands disposed of.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

marathe