Sohel Asgar Ali Amin Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Kalmeshwar Dist Nagpur

2025:BHC-NAG:6360

423 appln47.25

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.47 OF 2025 Sohel Asgar Ali Amin

¶6

..vs..

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, thorough Police Station Officer, Police Station Kalmeshwr, district Nagpur

¶8

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

¶9

Shri S.V.Manohar, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Atharva Manohar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.Sneha Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
 CLOSED ON: 27/06/2025
 PRONOUNCED ON : 07/07/2025

¶11

By this application, the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside condition Nos.5, 6, and 7 imposed by learned District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Bail Application No.945/2025 while granting bail.

¶12

As per contentions of the applicant, on the basis of a report lodged by Assistant Police Inspector Savita Tawde, First Information Report, bearing Crime No.82/2025, came to be lodged with the

¶13

.....2/-

¶14

423 appln47.25

¶15

¶16

non-applicant/police station for offences punishable under
Section 106(1), 125(b), and 288 of the BNS 2023. As per
allegations, there was an explosion in the premises of
factory of the applicant and in the said explosion, two
workers died and two sustained grievous injuries. Whereas,
one sustained simple injuries. As per allegations, the
applicant is running “M/s.Asian Fireworks” wherein, due to
negligence of one of employees, the explosion took place
causing death of two persons and injuries to three persons.
On the basis of the said report, the police registered the
crime. The applicant approached learned Additional
Sessions Judge for grant of bail. While allowing the bail,
learned Judge below imposed conditions that licences
issued by the Central Government Authorities and the State
Government Authorities in respect of “Asian Fireworks”
Phataka Bazar, Amin Complex, 20/30, New Adarsh Nagar,
Wadi, Nagpur are suspended, till decision of the case.
Further condition imposed is, that the accused is barred
from conducting any trade or work regarding any type of

¶17

.....3/-

¶18

423 appln47.25

¶19

¶20

explosive material, till the decision of the case. The Central
Government Authorities and the State Government
Authorities are directed not to issue any new licence for
any trade or work regarding any type of explosive material
to the accused (applicant) henceforth, till the decision of
the case. The Investigating Officer was directed to send
copy of this order to the Home Secretary of the Central
Government and Home Secretary of the State Government.

¶21

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with said conditions, the present application is filed.

¶22

Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S.V.Manohar for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.Sneha Dhote for the State.

¶23

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that it is apparent from order impugned in this application that there was no negligence on the part of the applicant. One of deceased Bhura Rajjak threw a lit biddi near place where gunpowder was stored due to which the

¶24

.....4/-

¶25

423 appln47.25

¶26

¶27

explosion occurred. Learned Judge below has not
considered old offences referred by the prosecution from
which the applicant is already acquitted. As far as crime
registered at Hyderabad is concerned, there is no material
on record to show involvement of the applicant. He
submitted that onerous conditions are imposed which are
against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶28

In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on following decisions:

¶29

1. Kunal Kumar Tiwari alias Kunal Kumar vs.
State of Bihar and anr, reported in (2018)16
SCC 74;

¶30

2. Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs. State of Maharashtra and anr, reported in (2020)10 SCC 77, and

¶31

3. Ramesh Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2023)7 SCC 461.

¶32

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

¶33

.....5/-

¶34

423 appln47.25

¶35

¶36

strongly opposed the application on the ground that the
applicant has not narrated any criminal antecedents in the
application. She further submitted that in addition to
previous history of blast at the factory of the applicant, one
more serious crime is registered against him at Hyderabad
and Hyderabad City Police are verifying complicity of
certain explosive dealers with regard to supply of explosive
materials used in making of bombs. In view of that, the
application deserves to be rejected.

¶37

On hearing both sides and perusing

¶38

investigation papers, it reveals that while considering bail
application of the applicant, learned Judge below
specifically observed that the incident took place due to
mistake of one worker Bhura Rajjak. The CCTV Footage
shows that the lit biddi match stick were thrown, where
gunpowder was stored, due to which the explosion
occurred and death of two persons and injuries to 3
persons were caused.

¶39

.....6/-

¶40

423 appln47.25

¶41

¶42

Thus, recital of the First Information Report and investigation papers show that as far as negligence is concerned, the same was on the part of the deceased.

¶43

Another ground raised by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is that, there was criminal antecedents against the applicant. However, record and affidavit of the applicant in rejoinder shows that he is acquitted from both offences. The copies of the judgment are placed on record.

¶44

As far as offences registered at Hyderabad are concerned, except mere allegation by the prosecution, there is absolutely no material placed on record to show that during investigation involvement of the applicant revealed.

¶45

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

¶46

State placed reliance on one paper communication in
respect of two blasts at Hyderabad where only reference is
that there is a possibility of complicity of certain explosive

¶47

.....7/-

¶48

423 appln47.25

¶49

¶50

dealers from Nagpur.

¶51

Thus, as far as involvement of the applicant in

¶52

the blast is concerned, at this stage, there is no such
material.

¶53

It is well settled that while considering bail applications, Section 437(3) of the CrPC allows courts to impose conditions in the interest of justice. However, such conditions cannot be arbitrary or extends beyond the ends of provision.

¶54

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunal Kumar Tiwari alias Kunal Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anr

¶55

supra held that there is no dispute that sub-clause (c) of
Section 437(3) of the CrPC allows Courts to impose such
conditions in the interest of justice, but it should not
arbitrary.

¶56

In the case of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla vs.

¶57

State of Maharashtra and anrsupra also provisions of
Section 437(3) of the CrPC were considered by the Hon’ble

¶58

.....8/-

¶59

423 appln47.25

¶60

¶61

Apex Court and held that grant or refusal of bail is entirely
within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and
though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised
judiciously.

¶62

The Hon’ ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh

¶63

Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi also the aspect is
considered and held that while considering bail
applications, conditions can be imposed, but the said
conditions should not be arbitrary.

¶64

In the light of facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the application deserves to be allowed, as per order below:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(1) The Criminal Application is allowed.

¶67

(2) Condition Nos.5, 6, and 7, imposed upon the applicant
by learned District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge,

¶68

Nagpur in Criminal Bail Application No.945/2025, while

¶69

.....9/-

¶70

423 appln47.25

¶71

¶72

granting bail, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶73

(3) The rest of the order impugned is maintained.

¶74

Application is disposed of.

¶75

 (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶76

!! BrWankhede !!

¶77

...../-

Sohel Asgar Ali Amin v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Kalmeshwar Dist Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohel Asgar Ali Amin v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Kalmeshwar Dist Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swapnil Sureshrao Rom Vs Shalini W/O Swapnil Rom and 1ANOTHER

Mahesh S/O Keshaorao Wadaskar ( in Jail) Vs State of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Mankapur Nagpur and Anr.

Chinonso S/O Nwankoi Rafhel Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, P. S. Cyber Nagpur

Farzana Khatun Shamsher Khan vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps, Old City, Akola and Anr.

Gajanan Latari Tonge and Ors. Vs State of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Maregaon

Ravindra S/O Manoharrao Gharpure Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Jalalkheda, Dist. Nagpur