Faizan Abdul Hak Kureshi vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2025)

Faizan Abdul Hak Kureshi vs State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: release on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions - furnishing residential address to police station and trial Court before release; reporting to the Investigating Officer as called; attending trial Court on the first Tuesday of every month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.; co-operating with the trial without unnecessary adjournments; not leaving Maharashtra without prior Trial Court permission; not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence; infraction or two consecutive defaults attracting Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, arraigned as accused No.3 in C.R. No. 246 of 2023 (Mumbra Police Station) with charges under the IPC, Arms Act and MCOCA, is entitled to bail where the prosecution cannot prima facie show his precise role or nexus to the crime.

Court's answer

No witness statement or prosecution material incriminates the Applicant as having been present at the scene of crime; the FIR is pointedly directed against four unknown persons, and the reference to a fourth accused “Babu” is unrelated to the Applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Mere invocation of the stringent MCOCA provisions does not establish the Applicant's complicity unless his prima facie role is deciphered and shown to the Court from the prosecution case/material on record.

Key takeaways

The confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 against the Applicant cannot be accepted by the Court at this stage unless his prima facie nexus is exhibited and shown from the prosecution case on record.ratio¶5
Since the prosecution could not show the Applicant's precise role, neither the prosecution witnesses nor the First Informant identified him, and no Test Identification Parade was conducted for him (unlike principal accused No.1), the Applicant made out a case for grant of bail; bail allowed subject to terms and conditions.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - MCOCA - Accused No.3 in C.R. No. 246 of 2023 (Mumbra Police Station) for offences under ss. 394, 341, 504, 427 r/w 34 IPC, s. 4(25) Arms Act and ss. 3(1)(ii), 3(ii), 3(4) MCOCA - FIR pointedly directed against four unknown persons; no witness statement or prosecution material placing Applicant at the scene; fourth accused named “Babu” unrelated to Applicant - MCOCA invoked primarily on six pending antecedents - mere invocation of MCOCA does not establish complicity absent a prima facie deciphered role - prosecution case rests on confessional statements of accused Nos.1 and 2, not acceptable at the threshold absent prima facie nexus - Test Identification Parade held only for accused No.1, none for Applicant - bail granted on P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with conditions including monthly presence before trial Court on first Tuesday and a bar on leaving Maharashtra without permission; infraction attracts s. 439(2) Cr.P.C. - apparent discrepancy in sanction noted but expressly not adjudicated.

13 ba 156-25-cr.doc

Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.156 OF 2025

Faizan Abdul Hak Kureshi .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

Ms. Aruna S. Pai with Mr. N. M. Nadar, Advocates for the Applicant.

Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent/State.

Mr. Samadhan Magade, API, Mumbra Police Station is present.

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 25, 2025.

P.C.:

Heard Ms. Pai, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Dedhia, learned APP for the State.

The present Applicant is indicted in the offence and is seeking bail

in connection with C.R.No.246 of 2023 registered with Mumbra Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 394, 341, 504, 427 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 4(25) of Arms Act and Section 3(1)(ii), 3(ii), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act ( MCOCA ). The Applicant is arrayed as accused No.3 in the present crime. There are a total four accused persons. Accused No.1 is alleged to be the gang-leader and accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are alleged to be his

Digitally PRIYARAJESHSOPARKAR signed byPRIYARAJESHSOPARKARDate:2025.04.28 16:45:58 +0530

1 of 5

13 ba 156-25-cr.doc

associates and active members of the organized crime syndicate headed by accused No.1.

In so far as nexus of present Applicant with the crime in question is concerned, what emanates from prosecution record is that he is known to accused No.1. In so far as specific incident in the present crime is concerned, it is seen that First Informant while returning after visiting his relative at about 22.45 hours was proceeding in his car at Mumbra bypass when one Avenger motorcycle coming in high speed collided with his car. Applicant was driving the motorcycle. That led to an altercation resulting in Informant lodging a complaint that they were robbed of their valuables, cash and mobile handsets by the two motorcycle riders. Prima faice, when FIR is seen, allegation in so far as present crime is concerned, it is pointedly directed against four unknown persons. Two of them riding the Avenger motorcycle and two riding a scooty bike. In so far as reference to present Applicant is concerned about his presence at the scene of crime, there is no specific statement of any witness or any prosecution material incriminating him to have been present at the scene of crime. Reference to fourth accused person is by the name “Babu” which is not related to Applicant before me.

2 of 5

13 ba 156-25-cr.doc

Invocation of stringent provisions of MCOCA are primarily in view of Applicant having antecedents, namely, six antecedents in respect of which court cases are pending, all registered with Mumbra Police Station. There is also an apparent discrepancy argued by learned Advocate for the Applicant with respect to the sanction which has been obtained, but I need not advert to the same in view of the nexus and role of the Applicant not being prima facie clearly shown to the Court at the threshold. There is no doubt that prosecution has invoked the stringent provisions of the MCOCA but mere invocation of the said provisions would not establish complicity of Applicant unless prima facie role of Applicant is deciphered and shown to the Court from the prosecution case/ material on record.

Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. Uttam Kolekar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, perusal of which would show that Test Identification Parade in so far as identification of accused No.1 was conducted before the Tahasildar/Executive Magistrate, Thane, wherein First Informant identified accused No.1. Nothing prevented the prosecution from conducting the Test Identification Parade for identification of the present Applicant which has not been conducted. Case of the prosecution is primarily based on confessional statement of accused No.1 and 2 qua and against the Applicant before me.

3 of 5

13 ba 156-25-cr.doc

Confessional statements as argued by learned Prosecutor will have to be considered considering indictment of Applicant in a Special Act, namely, MCOCA. However, unless prima facie nexus of Applicant is exhibited and shown from the prosecution case on record, the said confessional statements cannot be accepted by the Court at this stage.

In view of the above prima facie observations, considering that prosecution is unable to show precise role of Applicant, neither the prosecution witnesses or First Informant has identified Applicant or they have conducted the Test Identification Parade which they have conducted qua the principal accused No.1, the Applicant before me has made out a case for grant of bail. Hence, Bail Application is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:-

(i) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

(ii) Before his actual release from jail, Applicant shall furnish his address where he proposes to reside after his release from jail to the concerned Police Station and also to the trial Court;

(iii) After his release from jail, Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when called for;

4 of 5

13 ba 156-25-cr.doc

(iv) Applicant shall attend the trial Court on first Tuesday of every month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. to mark his presence. If the first Tuesday of the said month falls on a holiday and / or non Court working day, the Applicant shall mark presence on the next working day;

(v) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the trial Court on all dates unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of this order;

(vi) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(vii) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; and

(viii) In case of any infraction of the above conditions and / or two consecutive defaults in marking his attendance before trial Court, it shall attract the provisions of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. i.e. for cancellation of bail.

Bail Application is allowed and disposed.

5 of 5