Allowed¶16

Shahbaz Khan S/O Pyaru Khan v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Yashodhara Nagar Dist Nagpur

Bombay HC10 Nov 2025ABA/777/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail confirmed by Bombay HC Nagpur Bench (Joshi, J.) on 10/11/2025 in Criminal Application (ABA) No. 777 of 2025 for Shahbaz Khan Pyaru Khan against State of Maharashtra re Crime No.612 of 2024, P.S. Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur (IPC ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34). Custodial interrogation held unnecessary; ad-interim bail of 15.10.2025 confirmed on same terms; attendance before IO directed. Counsel: Yash Venkatraman (applicant); Mrunal Barabde, APP (State). No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of the ad-interim anticipatory bail granted on 15.10.2025, on the same terms and conditions; applicant to attend the concerned police station as and when called by the investigating officer. ¶16

Shahbaz Khan S/O Pyaru Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, who has apprehension of arrest in Crime No.612 of 2024 (Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC, P.S. Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur), should be granted anticipatory bail, i.e., whether his custodial interrogation is required and his ad-interim protection dated 15.10.2025 should be confirmed.

¶10

Court's answer

Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation is not required.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The application is required to be allowed on the same terms and conditions imposed in the order dated 15.10.2025.

¶15

Key takeaways

The application is allowed and the order dated 15.10.2025 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail is confirmed; the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the investigating officer, and the application stands disposed of.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail application allowed — Shahbaz Khan Pyaru Khan v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (ABA) No. 777 of 2025, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Vrushali V. Joshi, J.), decided 10/11/2025. The applicant feared arrest in Crime No.612 of 2024, P.S. Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur (ss. 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 r/w s. 34 IPC), and had been protected by ad-interim anticipatory bail ordered on 15.10.2025. Holding that, considering the allegations, the applicant's custodial interrogation was not required, the Court confirmed the ad-interim anticipatory bail on the same terms and conditions, directing attendance at the police station as and when called by the investigating officer. Context noted: the applicant's earlier bail application had been withdrawn after the Court showed disinclination, and one co-accused had been arrested and released on bail.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:11687

¶2

1 / 2 16-aba-777-25

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION(ABA) NO. 777 OF 2025

¶5

Shahbaz Khan Pyaru Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Mr.Yash Venkatraman, counsel for the applicant. Ms.Mrunal Barabde, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

¶9

DATE : 10/11/2025

¶10

The applicant has apprehension of arrest in Crime No.612 of 2024 registered at Police Station Yashodhara Nagar, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 420,465,467,468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

The applicant was protected by this Court on 15.10.2025.

¶12

The learned APP has stated that the earlier bail application was withdrawn by this applicant, as disinclination to grant the bail was shown by this Court. The amount was transferred in the account of this applicant. The active role is played by this applicant. Though the applicant is attending the police station, the bail may be rejected.

¶13

Kavita

¶14

2 / 2 16-aba-777-25

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has stated that the role played by this applicant is mentioned by the complainant in his earlier complaint and has changed his version. The said complaint was not brought to the notice of the Yashodhara Police Station. According to the learned counsel for the applicant there was no transaction between the applicant and the complainant and he has mentioned it in his earlier complaint. Earlier, one of the accused was arrested and he is released on bail. Considering the allegations made against this applicant, the custodial interrogation of this applicant is not required. The application is required to be allowed on the same terms and conditions imposed in the order dated 15.10.2025. Hence, the following order:-

¶16

i] The application is allowed.

¶17

ii] The order dated 15.10.2025 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail is confirmed.

¶18

iii] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the investigating officer.

¶19

iv] The application stands disposed of.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

Kavita

Shahbaz Khan S/O Pyaru Khan v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Yashodhara Nagar Dist Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahbaz Khan S/O Pyaru Khan v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Yashodhara Nagar Dist Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham @ Khushal S/O Somraj Sarbhaiyya Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Saoner Dist. Nagpur

Indira Harishchand Katre and Another vs Hinduja Finance Ltd., Amravati and Others

Akshay S/O Dipak Awale vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Imamwada Nagpur

Balaji Rajendra Nerlikar vs State of Maharashtra

Niranjan @ Ranjan S/O Namdeo Mesare vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Shivaji Nagar Ps Khamgaon Dist Buldhana and Anr.

Krushna Alias Amol Angad Pandhare vs State of Maharashtra