Allowed¶20

Siraj Alimoddin Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026ABA/1243/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed, interim relief confirmed; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 109, 117(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) r/w Section 3(5); Crime No. 0373 of 2025, Ahmedpur Police Station, Dist. Latur; FIR by Madhukar Pawar, incident 29.05.2025 behind Pritam hotel; stab injury not attributed to applicant; applicant allegedly assaulted with stick; weapon seized, custodial interrogation unnecessary; counter report, possible exaggeration; five criminal antecedents not sole ground for rejection; R. M. Joshi, J.; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; 10 June 2026; ABA 1243/2025.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail (pre-arrest protection) granted by confirming the interim relief already in force in favour of the applicant. ¶20

Siraj Alimoddin Sayyed vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail (pre-arrest protection) granted by confirming the interim relief already in force in favour of the applicant.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail should be granted to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 0373 of 2025 registered for offences under Sections 109, 117(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. +2 more

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, the single injury sustained by the injured person was a stab injury which cannot be attributed to the applicant, since there is no allegation that the applicant used any weapon capable of causing a stab injury; it is the informant's case that the witnesses were assaulted by the applicant with a stick.

¶15

Key takeaways

In view of the counter report lodged over the same incident, the possibility of exaggeration of the incident by the informant is not ruled out.ratio¶15
Since the alleged weapon used in the crime has already been seized, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.ratio¶15
Although five offences are registered against the applicant, there is no material in the present crime connecting him with the assault, and therefore the existence of such criminal antecedents would not be the sole ground to reject the anticipatory bail application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench — Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1243 of 2025 — Siraj Alimoddin Sayyed v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. — Coram: R. M. Joshi, J. — Decided 10 June 2026. Applicant sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 0373 of 2025 (Ahmedpur Police Station, Dist. Latur) under Sections 109, 117(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from an FIR by Madhukar Pawar concerning an incident of 29.05.2025 behind Pritam hotel. Held (per court): the recorded stab injury on the injured person could not prima facie be attributed to the applicant, no allegation attributing a stab-causing weapon to him existing, his alleged role being assault with a stick; a counter report over the same incident meant exaggeration by the informant was possible; the alleged weapon having been seized, custodial interrogation was unnecessary; and the applicant's five prior offences were not, absent material connecting him to this assault, a sole ground for rejection. Application allowed and interim relief confirmed.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:22939

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1243 OF 2025

¶4

Siraj Alimoddin Sayyed VERSUS

¶5

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶6

Mr. Y. B. Bolkar h/f Mr. E. G. Irale, Advocate for applicant Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for respondent-State

¶7

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2026

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0373 of 2025 registered with Ahmedpur Police Station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under Section 109, 117(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶10

First Information Report is lodged by Madhukar Pawar and incident occurred on 29.05.2025 at the place behind Pritam hotel. First Informant claims that while taking food, he dropped water Mug on floor and water spilled, thereafter he was forced to wipe the spilled water with his shirt. When he refused to do so, he was abused. Later on another incident occurred on 4:15 PM in which the accused persons assaulted the informant and others. There is allegation against the present applicant that he caused assault with stick on the injured.

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

912-ABA-1243-2025.odt

¶13

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations in the First Information Report are vague in so far as the role of the present applicant is concerned and in view of the fact that the stick allegedly used in the crime is already seized, custodial interrogation is not necessary.

¶14

Learned APP opposed the application by citing seriousness of the crime, the statement recorded during the course of the investigation and on the ground that there are five criminal offences registered against the present applicant. She drew attention of the Court to the injury certificates of injured witnesses indicating the cause of grievous injuries to them.

¶15

Prima facie, perusal of the record indicates that injured person even though sustained one injury still the said injury is stab injury and hence cannot be attributed against applicant. There is no allegation against the present applicant that he used any weapon by which stab injury could be caused. It is the case of the informant that the witnesses were assaulted with stick by the present applicant. Some injuries have been reflected in the injury certificate. There is counter report lodged in respect of the said incident. Possibility of exaggeration of incident by informant therefore, is not ruled out. Since the alleged weapon used in the crime is already seized, custodial interrogation is not

¶16

2 of 3

¶17

912-ABA-1243-2025.odt

¶18

necessary.

¶19

As far as the criminal antecedents against the applicant are concerned, though it is a fact that there are five offences registered against him; however, in the present crime, there is no material to connect him with the assault in question and hence existence of antecedents would not become sole ground to reject application.

¶20

Application stands allowed by confirming interim relief.

¶21

B. S. Joshi

¶22

3 of 3

¶23

912-ABA-1243-2025.odt

Siraj Alimoddin Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siraj Alimoddin Sayyed v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Dattatray Gorde vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raghunath Pandurang Jadhav and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sadanand Balu Tare and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maharashtra State Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller vs Smt. Swati Sanjay Valanju and Ors.

Anil Mahadev Chavan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Biharlal Sitaram Jaiswar and Anr.