Shaikh Razique Shaikh Anwar v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Ural Tq. Balapur Dist. Akola

2025:BHC-NAG:13601 1 / 3 22-aba-883-25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION(ABA) NO. 883 OF 2025 Shaikh Razique Shaikh Anwar Vs. State of Maharashtra ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sibghaullah Jagirdar, counsel for the applicant. Ms.M.A.Barabde,APP for the State.

CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 05/12/2025 1.

The applicant has filed the present application, thereby praying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 259/2025 registered at Non-applicant Police Station Ural Tq. Balapur District Akola for offence punishable under Sections 118(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 296 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023.

2. The prosecution story in short is that, there is a dispute about agriculture land between the father of complainant Yusif Shah and his elder uncle Sabir Shah. On 15.09.2025 in the night the complainant himself, his father Yusuf Shah, his brother Arif Shah and his two sons namely Sahil Shah, Javed Shah were going towards their filed. At

2 / 3 22-aba-883-25 that time Sheikh Manwar@ Manna Sheikh Anwar abused them in filthy language. It is alleged that, the applicant also abused them in filthy language and assaulted with fist and blow. The present applicant also assaulted with an axe on hand of his son Sahil, the applicant also assaulted with stick on the informant. There are allegations against Sheikh Yusuf also. The complaint was lodged and the crime is registered. 3.

The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the counter complaints are lodged against each other. The complaint lodged by the brother of this applicant is at the first point of time. The complainant in this case was arrested and released on bail.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the other co-accused are released on bail considering their role. The application of this applicant was rejected as the role played by this applicant is of assault by an axe and accused was not arrested.

5.

The learned APP has opposed the application stating that the injury certificate shows that the assault was there. Though the counter complaints are there, serious injuries are caused to both the parties. The accused in other FIR are already taken in custody and released on bail. Considering the role played by this applicant, custodial

3 / 3 22-aba-883-25 interrogation of this applicant is necessary. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

6. Heard both the sides and perused the record.

7. The role attributed to this applicant is assault by an axe. After going through the medical certificate, it appears that there was assault by hard and blunt object. The injuries were there. Considering the role played by this applicant, custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, the application is rejected.

8. The Criminal Application stands disposed of. JUDGE