Dismissed¶12

Taufik Maryam Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Mar 2026BA/492/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Taufik Maryam Qureshi bail application rejected; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Shailesh P. Brahme, J.; 07.04.2026; Crime No. 282 of 2025, Renapur Police Station, Latur; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 sections 103(1), 109, 3(5); wife Fatima set ablaze with petrol on 24.07.2025 with girlfriend co-accused Hina Pathan / Hina Taufik Qureshi; three consistent dying declarations 25.07.2025 and 26.07.2025 recorded with medical officer; specific overt act attributed; mens rea prima facie established; co-accused bail rejected 13.01.2026; Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023INSC758 distinguished; advocate Ubaid S. Hashmi; APP N.R. Dayma.

What did the court decide?

It is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail, and the bail application is rejected. ¶11

Taufik Maryam Qureshi vs the State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, facing charges under sections 103(1), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No. 282 of 2025 (Renapur Police Station, District Latur), should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

It is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail, and the bail application is rejected.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The FIR and the dying declarations recorded on 25.07.2025 and 26.07.2025 are consistent, attribute a specific role to the applicant and co-accused Hina; the last two dying declarations were recorded after medical examination and in the presence of the medical officer, and the prosecution story is corroborated by the parents, brother and sister of the deceased.

¶7

Key takeaways

There is prima facie material to show that the applicant and co-accused wanted to eliminate the deceased and that mens rea existed; the deceased's objection to the applicant's extra marital relations with co-accused Hina cannot be said to be misplaced.ratio¶8
The facts of Irfan @ Naka v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2023INSC758), relied on by defence counsel to question the reliability of dying declarations, are distinguishable because that matter had reached the Supreme Court after a full-fledged trial and conviction on concurrent findings, which is not the position in the present pre-trial bail matter.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application No. 492 of 2026 — Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Shailesh P. Brahme, J.), decided 07 April 2026: bail application of Taufik Maryam Qureshi, accused in Crime No. 282 of 2025 of Renapur Police Station, District Latur, under sections 103(1), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. The applicant is alleged to have, on 24.07.2025, together with his girlfriend Hina Pathan, poured petrol and set ablaze his wife Fatima, who objected to his extra marital relations, and she succumbed to her injuries. The court found the First Information Report and the dying declarations of 25.07.2025 and 26.07.2025 consistent and attributing a specific role to the applicant and co-accused Hina; the last two dying declarations were recorded after medical examination and in the presence of the medical officer, and the prosecution story is corroborated by the deceased's parents, brother and sister. The court held that the deceased's objection to the extra marital relations was not misplaced, citing the medical practitioner's letter and the co-accused's name recorded as Hina Taufik Qureshi, and that there is prima facie material showing intent to eliminate the deceased and existing mens rea. The Co-ordinate Bench had already rejected co-accused Hina Pathan's bail application on 13.01.2026. Defence reliance on Irfan @ Naka v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023INSC758, was distinguished as a post-trial, post-conviction appellate matter unlike the present bail stage. Application rejected.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:15228

¶2

1 492 – 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 492 OF 2026

¶5

TAUFIK MARYAM QURESHI VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

Advocate for applicant : Mr. Ubaid S. Hashmi APP for the respondent – State : Mr. N.R. Dayma

¶8

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 07 APRIL 2026

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard both side.

¶11

Applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Crime No. 282 of 2025 registered with Renapur Police Station, District – Latur for the offences punishable under section 103(1), 109, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶12

Applicant is facing allegation that on 24.07.2025, there was a quarrel with his wife Fatima when he returned home with his girlfriend, Hina. It is alleged that applicant and Hina set Fatima ablaze, by pouring petrol on her person. She was shifted to hospital in half-burnt condition and after giving some treatment, she succumbed to the injuries.

¶13

2 492 – 2026

¶14

Applicant was arrested on 28.07.2025. The charge sheet was filed on 13.10.2025 against him, his girlfriend Hina, and their parents. It is alleged that there used to be frequent disputes between couple for his extra marital relations with Hina. The deceased was eliminated by the applicant and his girlfriend.

¶15

Learning Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant rescued the deceased from fire and shifted her to the hospital for treatment. The dying declarations are inconsistent and suspicious because she was 69% burnt and was unable to depose anything. Applicant is falsely implicated in the offence by the stereotype statements of the relatives. The deceased was unnecessarily suspecting the applicant. It's a case of suicide. No mens rea can be inferred from the police papers.

¶16

Per contra, APP would point out three dying declarations which are consistent and a specific overt act is attributed to the applicant. The statements of parents, sister, brother would attribute the persistent harassment at the hands of the applicant because of his extra marital relations with Hina Pathan. A bottle containing petrol is recovered from the spot of the incident. The bail application of Hina Pathan was rejected by High Court on 13.01.2026.

¶17

3 492 – 2026

¶18

First Information Report, dying declaration recorded on 25.07.2025 and 26.07.2025 are consistent and attribute specific role to the applicant and co-accused Hina. Applicant was having extra marital relations with Hina Pathan, which was objected by the deceased. The deceased was conscious enough to record the dying declarations. Last two dying declarations were recorded after medical examination and in the presence of the medical officer. The prosecution story is corroborated by parents, brother and sister of the deceased.

¶19

The objection of the deceased for having extra marital relations with co-accused Hina, cannot be said to be misplaced. The coaccused was taken by the applicant for the medical treatment on 24.07.2025. The letter issued by the Medical practitioner would show that the applicant was having such a relations. The name of the coaccused is stated to be Hina Taufik Qureshi which shows that she was not merely a friend. There is a prima facie material to show that applicant and co-accused wanted to eliminate the deceased and there existed mens rea .

¶20

The Co-ordinate Bench has already rejected bail application of co-accused Hina Pathan vide order dated 13.01.2026.

¶21

4 492 – 2026

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Irfan @ Naka V. The State of Uttar Pradesh ; 2023INSC758, to buttress that dying declarations are not reliable. The facts are distinguishable from the present case. Apex Court was dealing with the matter which had reached after full fledged trial. After suffering conviction by the concurrent findings, the appellant had approached the Apex Court. Such is not the case in the present matter.

¶23

For the reasons stated above, I find that it’s not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶24

12. Application is rejected.

¶25

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] JUDGE

¶26

arp/

Taufik Maryam Qureshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taufik Maryam Qureshi v. the 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

Ajit Bajirao Nikse and Another vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Kadar, Abdul Sikur (Died) Thr Lrs Trannum Phirdose W/O Mohd. Shueb Patel vs State of Maharashtra Thr Collector, Jalna and Ors.

Irfan Ayyub Gorwade vs the State of Maharashtra

Bansi Madhavrao Sale vs City and Industrial Development Corporation Waluj Mahanagar Prakalp 1 Cidco Chh Sambhajinagar

Nilesh Alias Rao Anil Sonawane vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dineshkumar K. Jethliya Died Thru. Lrs. Netal N. Jethliya Thru. Guardian Deepa S. Mandhana and Ors. vs Gajanan Laxmanrao Shinde