Allowed¶20

Anshul Narendrakumar Abad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jun 2026ABA/532/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ankit Abhay Abad & another and Anshul Narendrakumar Abad & another v. State of Maharashtra; Anticipatory Bail Applications Nos. 535 and 532 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench; decided 10 June 2026 by R. M. Joshi, J.; Crime No. 80 of 2025, Jalna Police Station; offences under Sections 352, 351(3), 351(2), 326(g), 324(5), 324(4), 3(5) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; FIR dated 14.02.2025 - tin shed set on fire by unknown person, informant suspects applicants' instigation; Shaikh Wasim statement re previous threat incident; held no material connecting applicants to crime, witness statements raise only suspicion, no criminal history, not likely to flee; applications allowed, interim relief confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Both anticipatory bail applications allowed; interim relief confirmed. ¶20

Anshul Narendrakumar Abad and Another vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:22791

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 535 OF 2025

¶4

Ankit Abhay Abad And Another VERSUS

¶5

The State Of Maharashtra

¶6

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 532 OF 2025

¶7

Anshul Narendrakumar Abad And Another

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State Of Maharashtra

¶10

Mr. S. S. Bora, Advocate for Applicant Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for respondent-State

¶11

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

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

Applicants seek bail in connection with crime No. 80 of 2025 registered with Jalna Police Station, Dist. Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections, 352, 351(3), 351(2), 326(g), 324(5), 324(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶14

Prosecution on the basis of First Information Report lodged by the informant that on 14.02.2025 at about 8:30 AM. Some unknown person set fire to the tin shed on the land of the informant alleged. However, the informant suspects that the act has been done at the instance/instigation of present applicants.

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

911-ABA-535-2025.odt

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is admittedly the prosecution's case that the tin shed was set on fire by an unknown person. According to him, during the course of investigation, nothing is brought on record to keep present applicants with the crime. He therefore, seeks confirmation of the interim relief.

¶18

Learned APP oppose the application. She drew attention of the Court to the statement of Shaikh Wasim who stated about the previous incident in which the applicants had threatened the informant.

¶19

Prima facie perusal of the record shows that there is no material to connect the present applicants to the crime in question. The statements of the witnesses pointed out by the learned APP only raise a suspicion. Suffice it to say that, in the absence of any concrete evidence connecting the applicants to the crime, there is no ground to reject the application. Applicants have no criminal history. They are not likely to flee from justice. This Court finds it appropriate to allow the application.

¶20

Hence, applications stand allowed. Interim relief stands confirmed.

¶21

B. S. Joshi

¶22

2 of 2

¶23

911-ABA-535-2025.odt

Anshul Narendrakumar Abad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshul Narendrakumar Abad and Another v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arefkhan Yusufkhan Pathan Alias Aaref Yusuf Pathan vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kailash Pida Pawara vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Martand Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babasaheb Pandharinath Waghmode vs Mitaji Bhausaheb Waghmode and Others

Sudhir Madhukar Bansode and Another vs the State of Maharashtra

Siraj Alimoddin Sayyed vs the State of Maharashtra and Another