Almas Karim Sayyed vs State of Maharashtra

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN GOPAL Date: CHANDAN 2026.05.09 16:47:43 +0530

¶2

(502) ABA-860.26.DOCX

¶3

lgc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 860 OF 2026

¶6

Almas Karim Sayyed : Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & anr. : Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey i/by SAVJ Law Solutions for the Applicant. Mrs. Anuja Gotad, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Arpit Mutha, for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

¶9

DATED : 05 MAY 2026

¶10

PC:-

¶11

By the present Application, Applicant is seeking prearrest bail apprehending her arrest in Crime No.0471 of 2025 (impugned FIR) dated 31 December 2025 registered with Indira Nagar Police Station by which the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶12

There are 8 accused in the present crime. Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that,

¶13

1

¶14

(502) ABA-860.26.DOCX

¶15

Applicant is Accused No.6 whereas Kapil Arvind Pathak is Accused No.2 in this crime.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the Applicant (Accused No. 6), an Advocate by profession, is instrumental in a land-grabbing syndicate. The Applicant, along with her husband (Accused No. 2), is involved in creating false documents and thereafter transferring the properties in the name of the Applicant. Allegations of impersonation and the creation of false documents are made in the FIR.

¶17

Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the impugned FIR does not contain any allegations against the Applicant for making out a case in respect of the offences charged. He submits that though the allegations in the FIR are of the Applicant and Kapil Arvind Pathak being husband and wife, he specifically disputes the said relationship of the Applicant (Almas Sayyed) and Kapil Arvind Pathak. To clarify, he states that Almas Karim Sayyed (Applicant) and Kapil Arvind Pathak are not husband and wife.

¶18

Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the Respondent/State, submits that the Applicant and her husband, Kapil Arvind Pathak, are involved in a land-grabbing syndicate. She submits that the investigation has revealed that the Applicant has criminal antecedents in the nature of FIR No. 466 of 2025. She highlights that the offences in these two FIRs are identical and similar. She submits that the modus operandi of the

¶19

2

¶20

(502) ABA-860.26.DOCX

¶21

Applicant, her husband, Kapil Arvind Pathak and other Accused is to grab land from gullible victims. She submits that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is required to unearth the land-grabbing racket.

¶22

Mr. Arpit Mutha, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, submits that the FIR demonstrates a clear syndicate of land grabbing. He submits that the Applicant and her husband Kapil Arvind Pathak are involved in identifying lands belonging to persons from the lower strata, thereafter impersonating them and purchasing the property in their name. He submits that the involvement of the Applicant is clearly disclosed in the impugned FIR.

¶23

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the manner in which a person (Sudhir Jamnadas Gujrathi) was identified by the Accused No.2 , a prima facie case of impersonation has been made out. Accused No. 2 i.e., the husband of the Applicant, is instrumental in identifying both the purchaser and the vendor in the sale deed. Mrs. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for the Respondent/State, submits that the material on record indicates that the person shown as the vendor in the sale deed is not Sudhir Jamnadas Gujrathi. Mr Arpit Mutha, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, submits that the Applicant is the beneficiary of the sale deed, which is a product of fraud.

¶24

In addition to the gravity of offence, the Applicant has criminal antecedents of identical if not similar in nature. The

¶25

3

¶26

(502) ABA-860.26.DOCX

¶27

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Sehgal Vs. State of U.P.¹ in paragraph 6 has observed that the criminal antecedents of an Accused by itself are sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.

¶28

Involvement of the Applicant in the crime is prima facie made out. For the reasons stated herein above, this Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

¶29

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶30

1

¶31

2026 SCC OnLine SC 740

¶32

4

Almas Karim Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Almas Karim Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalpesh Sanjay Nikam vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajanikant Surajrambachkaniwala and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Smit Shah and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ansari Faisal Azeem Akhlaque Ahmad vs State of Maharashtra

Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Pmla and Anr.

Jitendra Vedprakash Puri and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.