Dismissed¶32

Rahmani Aadil Mohammad Saeed v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Feb 2026ABA/298/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail dismissed; pre-arrest bail refused; Bombay High Court; Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; ABA 298/2026; Crime No. 150 of 2025; Azadnagar Police Station (Nashik Rural); BNS 2023 Ss. 309(6), 351(2), 3(5); honey trap; blackmail; video shooting; Rs. 40,000/-; Accused No. 2; Rahmani Aadil Mohammad Saeed; criminal antecedents; eight FIRs Malegaon; Sharad Sehgal v State of U.P.; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 740; gravity of offence.

What did the court decide?

Considering the allegations in the complaint, the gravity of the offence and the Applicant's criminal antecedents, the Applicant is not entitled to any indulgence — anticipatory bail refused. ¶31

Rahmani Aadil Mohammad Saeed vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

6-ABA-298-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 298 OF 2026

¶4

Rahmani Aadil Mohammad Saeed … Applicant Versus The State Of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Adv. Ramesh Dule Patil a/w Adv. Lisa Das i/b Jay and Co., for the Applicant.

¶6

Mrs. Rajeshree Newton, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

PSI – Shrikant Dangre, Azadnagar Police Station, (Nashik Rural).

¶8

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 5^th May, 2026.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard Mr. Ramesh Patil learned Advocate for the Applicant

¶11

and Mrs. Rajeshree Newton learned Advocate for the RespondentState.

¶12

By the present Application, the Applicant is seeking prearrest bail, apprehending arrest, in Crime No. 150 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 309(6),

¶13

351(2), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Vivekanand

6-ABA-298-2026.doc

There are four accused in the crime. The Applicant is Accused No. 2.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the Applicant and the other Accused lured the Complainant by calling him to a particular place. A conspiracy was hatched to have a honey trap on the Complainant. Upon the Complainant reaching the spot where the girl (Accused No. 1) was present, the Accused started video shooting the Complainant in a compromising situation with the Accused No. 1, the plan being to blackmail the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant was manhandled, assaulted and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was taken from him.

¶19

Mr. Ramesh Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant was merely a bystander who assisted in apprehending the Complainant while the Complainant was fleeing from the other accused. He further submits that the Applicant has no other role.

¶20

Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the State, submits that the Applicant and the other accused were involved in a crime

Vivekanand

6-ABA-298-2026.doc

to blackmail the Complainant. She submits that the Applicant, along with the two other accused and the girl (Accused No. 1), had planned a honey trap on the Complainant. She submits that the Applicant has the following criminal antecedents :-

¶25

Sr. No.	F.I.R. No.	Police Station	Court	Case No.
1.	190/22	Malegaon City	ACJM, Malegaon	RCC/794/22
2.	56/22	Azad Nagar	ACJM, Malegaon	RCC/631/22
3.	63/23	Azad Nagar	Sessions Court, Malegaon	Sessions Case/129/24
4.	90/24	Killa	ACJM, Malegaon	RCC/796/25
5.	57/23	Pawarwadi	JMFC, Malegaon	RCC/310/24
6.	177/23	Azad Nagar	Addl. Sessions, Malegaon	Cr. BA/726/2025
7.	4/22	Pavarvadi	Addl. District & Sessions, Malegaon	SC/96/22
8.	82/22	Killa	Civil Court Senior Division, Malegaon	RCC/775/24

¶26

The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Sharad Sehgal v/s State of U.P.¹ , as held that antecedents alone are sufficient to deny discretionary relief of Anticipatory Bail.

¶27