Disposed¶31

Majid Anwar Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jul 2025APL/529/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application No. 529 of 2025, Bombay HC, S. M. Modak J, 30-07-2025. Applicant Majid Anwar Khan seeks modification of 2021 bail condition banning entry into vicinity of Dongri; earlier rejection dated 04-04-2025 based on crime record shown by co-accused Shayams Ali Sayyed; J.J. Marg Police Station report on post-bail offences; FIR/NC copies to be produced; First-Informant impleaded as Respondent; adjourned to 07-08-2025 (High on Board); no statutes or cases cited.

What did the court decide?

No decision on the merits of the modification application; matter stood over to 7th August 2025 to be listed “High on Board”. First-Informant allowed to be joined as party Respondent (amendment forthwith, notice waived, submissions by Affidavit); Applicant's counsel to produce copies of the FIR and NC complaint on the next date. ¶31

Majid Anwar Khan vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail condition restraining the applicant-accused from entering the vicinity of Dongri, imposed on 11th June 2021, should be modified now that four years have elapsed. +2 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Allowed the First-Informant, who raised no objection, to be joined as a party Respondent to the Criminal Application.

¶32

Key takeaways

Directed that the amendment impleading the First-Informant be carried out forthwith; his Advocate waived notice and he may file Vakalatnama and submit whatever submissions through an Affidavit.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Criminal Application No. 529 of 2025, S. M. Modak, J., 30 July 2025 — Interim order in Majid Anwar Khan's application seeking modification of a bail condition imposed on 11th June 2021 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai (“the applicant-accused shall not enter into the vicinity of Dongri till further order”). His earlier application for modification was rejected on 4th April 2025 predominantly on the basis of a crime record shown to the learned Judge by co-accused Shayams Ali Sayyed. Before this Court, the learned APP produced a report of J.J. Marg Police Station listing cognizable and non-cognizable offences registered against the Applicant after grant of bail; the Applicant's counsel asserted those offences were registered on the complaints of the co-accused Shayams and his relatives and assured production of the FIR and NC complaint copies on the next date. The First-Informant, having no objection, was allowed to be joined as a party Respondent; amendment directed forthwith, notice waived, submissions permitted through Affidavit. Matter stood over to 7th August 2025, listed “High on Board”. No statute or precedent was cited.

¶1

20-APL-529-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.529 OF 2025

¶4

SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR

¶5

Majid Anwar Khan ...Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2025.08.01 19:45:45 +0530

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

¶11

Mr.Anjali Patil:-	Advocate for Applicant.
Ms.Sangeeta Shinde:-	APP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶12

*****

¶13

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 30^th JULY 2025

¶14

P. C. :-

¶15

Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant-Accused and learned

¶16

APP.

¶17

While granting him bail, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge

¶18

– Greater Mumbai on 11^th June 2021 put a condition “the applicant-

¶19

accused shall not enter into the vicinity of Dongri till further order”. As

¶20

4 years have elapsed, the Applicant had applied for modification of the

¶21

condition. However, it was rejected vide the order dated 4^th April

¶22

2025 .

¶23

It was rejected predominantly on the basis of the crime record

Satish Sangar

1/2

20-APL-529-2025.doc

. shown to the learned Judge by co-accused Shayams Ali Sayyed

¶28

Learned APP has submitted a report given by the J.J. Marg Police Station. It gives details of cognizable and non-cognizable offences

¶29

registered against this Applicant after he was granted bail . Ms.Patil

¶30

submitted that all these offences are registered on the complaint of coaccused Shayams and his relatives. She assures that she will produce the . copies of the FIR and the NC complaint on the next date

¶31

Stand over to 7^th August 2025 . To be listed “ High on Board ”.

¶32

The First-Informant through his Advocate submitted that he is having no objection. Learned Advocate Ms.Patil submitted that she will be allowed to join him as party Respondent. It is allowed .

¶33

Amendment be carried out forthwith. Learned Advocate waives notice

¶34

for the First-Informant. He can file Vakalatnama and whatever may be

¶35

. the submission, he can file through an Affidavit

¶36

[S. M. MODAK, J.]

¶37

Satish Sangar

¶38

2/2

Majid Anwar Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majid Anwar Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jnr Builders vs Janabhai Padubhai Andher and Ors.

Jnr Builders vs Janabhai Padubhai Andher and Ors.

Ramesh Dhanaji Patil vs Kankubai Bhalchandra Patil and Ors.

Gurpreet Singh Alagh vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank Ltd. (Hdfc Bank Ltd) and Ors.

Rajendra Shamrao Bhole vs Shri. Vyankatesh Balaji Sanstha , Nashik Thru Trustees and Ors.

Prameshkumar Mevalal Gupta vs State of Maharashtra Throu. the Chief Sec. and Ors.