Umar Amin Makrani Alias Mohammad Umar Makrani v. The State Of Maharashtra
2025:BHC-AUG:34652 1 931.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4187 OF 2025 UMAR AMIN MAKRANI ALIAS MOHAMMAD UMAR MAKRANI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kagzi Parvezhasnath H. APP for Respondent : Mr. K.S. Patil ...
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : 10TH DECEMBER, 2025 PER COURT :
1.
Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent/State.
2.
The applicant is assailing the order dated 30.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, Nandurbar, below exhibit 1 in Criminal M.A. No. 16/2025, whereby the anticipatory bail granted in Criminal Bail Application No. 384/2024, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, on 11.12.2024, was cancelled. 3.
Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that the applicant was attending the police station regularly and also complied with all the terms and conditions imposed on him by the order dated 11.12.2024. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has cancelled the bail on the ground that the applicant is not cooperating
2 931.odt with the Investigation Officer, is not willing to provide a voice sample, and is not attending the police station. He submitted that the applicant regularly attended the police station; however, the police officer failed to record his attendance. Therefore, the order is required to be set aside. 4.
He further submitted that the Investigation Officer has taken the voice sample of the accused, and the applicant is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed on him by the order dated 11.12.2024. Therefore, he urged the quashing and setting aside of the said order.
5.
In response, learned APP submitted that the applicant did not cooperate with the Investigation Officer for recording his voice sample, so also he was not attending the police station as per the conditions in the bail order and, therefore, the learned Judge has rightly cancelled the bail. However, he submitted that, pursuant to this Court's order, the police have collected his voice sample and forwarded it to the Anti-Corruption Bureau Department. Similarly, on instructions, he submitted that there are no antecedents against the applicant. However, he urged that the applicant be directed to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the order dated 11.12.2024. During the argument, the learned APP has placed on record two reports dated 23.11.205 and 07.12.2025.
3 931.odt 6.
Having considered the above, it seems that by the impugned order, his bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, during the pendency of this petition, the police have taken his voice sample, and the applicant also undertakes that he will abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the bail order dated 11.12.2024, till the conclusion of the trial and will cooperate with the Investigation Officer. His statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Court. As such, I deem it appropriate to restore the order dated 11.12.2024.
7.
As a result, the application is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Nandurbar, is hereby quashed and set aside, and the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 384/2024 is restored. The Criminal Application stands disposed of. ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) SPC