Dismissed¶33

Munazir Nizamuddin Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Jan 2026BA/238/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Criminal Bail Application No.238 of 2026, decided 9th April 2026 by R.M. Joshi, J. Keywords: Munazir Nizamuddin Khan; bail; Crime No.95 of 2025, Versova Police Station; BNS 2023 Sections 319(2), 336(2), 337, 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2); Passports Act Section 12(1)(b); forged passport/travel documents; BARC identity card; nuclear warheads; blank certificates; 73 call records; FSL report awaited; supplementary chargesheet; bail dismissed with liberty to renew.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the Applicant to file a fresh application for bail after receipt of the FSL report or after filing of the supplementary chargesheet. ¶33

Munazir Nizamuddin Khan vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the Applicant to file a fresh application for bail after receipt of the FSL report or after filing of the supplementary chargesheet.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any material on record establishing the Applicant's nexus with the crime in question. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

On a prima-facie perusal of the record, sensitive information — including the identity card of B.A.R.C. and material with regard to nuclear warheads — was seized from the co-accused; on that basis, the blank certificates found in the Applicant's mobile phone support the prosecution's case that the Applicant may have provided bogus identity cards and certificates to the co-accused.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, this is not a case wherein there is absolutely no material on record to accept the involvement of the Applicant in the crime.

¶31

Key takeaways

Evidence on record indicates that as many as 73 calls were exchanged between the Applicant and the co-accused; at least at this stage it cannot be said that the Applicant had no contact with the co-accused, and the explanation for those calls would be a matter for trial.ratio¶32
With the FSL report on the forensic examination of the Applicant's seized mobile phone, 7 hard disks and laptop awaited, the Court found it not appropriate to exercise its discretion to grant bail.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — Munazir Nizamuddin Khan, applicant in Crime No.95 of 2025, Versova Police Station (offences under Sections 319(2), 336(2), 337, 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act). Prima facie material against the applicant: sensitive documents including a B.A.R.C. identity card and material relating to nuclear warheads seized from co-accused No.1 (Akhtar, also implicated in C.R. No.76 of 2004); blank certificates found in the applicant's mobile phone supporting the prosecution case that he supplied bogus identity cards/certificates; and 73 calls exchanged between applicant and co-accused, whose explanation is left to trial. FSL report on the applicant's seized mobile phone, 7 hard disks and laptop awaited; prosecution contemplating a supplementary chargesheet. Held not an appropriate stage to exercise discretion to grant bail; application dismissed with liberty to move afresh after the FSL report or the supplementary chargesheet.

¶1

ba238-26.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.238 OF 2026

¶6

Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2026.04.09 20:43:43 +0530

¶7

Munazir Nizamuddin Khan ...Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶8

Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam, Senior Counsel, Mr.Ditendra Mishra, Mr.Prashant P. Raul, Mr.Suraj Mhadgut and Mr.Gaurav Pande for the Applicant.

¶9

Ms.S.D. Shinde, APP for the State – Respondent.

¶10

Mr.Milind Kathe, P.I., D.C.B. C.I.D. C.I.U., Mumbai is present in Court.

¶11

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. RESERVED ON : 2ND APRIL, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 9TH APRIL, 2026.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

The Applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No.95 of 2025 registered with Versova Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 336(2), 337, 338,

¶14

336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 12(1)(b) of Passports Act.

¶15

1/6

¶16

ba238-26.doc

¶17

In short, it is the case of the prosecution that a specific

¶18

information was received by the officers of D.C.B. C.I.D. Unit in respect of accused No.1 – Akhtar, who is also accused in C.R. No.76 of 2004. The information was in respect of the said accused using forged documents such as identity card, passport, travel documents etc. and under the forged identity in the name of Alexander, he used to visit different foreign countries. On the basis of the said information, the raid was conducted in the house of accused No.1. From his custody, various documents were seized including passport, forged travel documents, identity card of Bhabha Autonomic Research Centre (BARC), 14 maps and information with regard to nuclear warheads. During interrogation with the co-accused and in further information the involvement of the present Applicant was revealed in this crime. He came to be arrested. From him mobile phone, 7 hard disks and laptop came to be recovered. According to the Applicant, investigation is over and chargesheet is filed.

¶19

Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submits that

¶20

there is no evidence in order to connect the Applicant with the

¶21

2/6

¶22

ba238-26.doc

¶23

crime in question. It is his submission that there is no evidence collected during the course of investigation which would reveal creation of any bogus documents by the Applicant and providing the same to the co-accused. He argued that the Applicant is working as an agent for providing the services to the clients to seek appointment of Passport Authorities and except for this, there is no other involvement of the Applicant in procuring of the passport or renewal thereof. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the mobile phone and hard disks seized from the Applicant were sealed immediately. It is his submission that merely on suspicion, the Applicant came to be arrested and on completion of the investigation for filing of the chargesheet against him, he cannot be kept in further custody.

¶24

Learned APP opposed the Application, firstly by submitting that the investigation into the crime is not concluded and the Investigating Agency is desirous of filing a supplementary chargesheet. It is submitted that there is primafacie evidence on record showing the sensitive documents with the co-accused, including the identity card of B.A.R.C. It is

¶25

3/6

¶26

ba238-26.doc

¶27

therefore, argued that unless forensic report is received in respect of the mobile phone, laptop and hard disks at the instance of the Applicant, it will not be in the interest of the investigation to grant bail to the Applicant. It is submitted that in any case, there is prima-facie evidence to show the involvement of the Applicant in this crime and having regard to the nature of evidence for possibilities of more incriminating material to be found during the FSL examination of mobile phone, hard disks etc., Application be rejected.

¶28

At this stage, the Court is required to see whether there is substance in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the Applicant about there being no material to accept his nexus with the crime in question. Prima-facie perusal of the record shows that from the co-accused, sensitive information like identity card of B.A.R.C. so also the material with regard to nuclear warheads is seized. On the basis of it, there is evidence to indicate that in the mobile phone of the Applicant, blank certificates were found which supports the case of the prosecution about the possibility of the Applicant having

¶29

4/6

¶30

ba238-26.doc

¶31

provided the bogus identity cards and certificates to the coaccused. Thus this is not a case wherein there is absolutely no material on record to accept the involvement of the Applicant in the crime.

¶32

During the course of seizure, mobile phone, 7 hard disks and laptop was seized from the Applicant. A report of FSL in respect of the forensic examination of the said electronic record is awaited. There is however, evidence on record to indicate that exchange of as many as 73 calls between the Applicant and the co-accused. Thus at least at this stage, it cannot be said that the Applicant has no contact with the coaccused. The explanation of the said calls would be a matter of consideration during the trial. In such circumstances, this Court finds it not appropriate to exercise the discretion of grant of bail to the Applicant.

¶33

In the above discussion, the Application is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Applicant to file fresh Application for bail after the receipt of FSL report or after filing of the supplementary chargesheet, as claimed on behalf of the

5/6

ba238-26.doc

prosecution.

The Application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶38

(R.M. JOSHI, J.)

¶39

6/6

Munazir Nizamuddin Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munazir Nizamuddin Khan v. 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

Mohammed Rafiq Abdul vs State of Maharashtra

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Controller vs Radha Machhindra Salve (Dec) Thr. Lrs. 1) Machhindra Khandu Salve and Ors.

Jayprakash Suru Shetty vs State of Maharashtra

Asha Sanjay Gavande and Ors. vs the Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Nashik

Zehaan Subhasish Das vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Sahebrao Nazarkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.