Mohd Ajmal Mohd. Ayyub Khan v. State Of Maharashtra

Digitally signed by CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE Date:

2025.06.24 20:59:36 +0530 CHITRA SANJAY SONAWANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No. 677 of 2025 Mohd. Ajmal Mohd. Ayyub Khan Age 19 years, Occ - Business, R/at - Padma Nagar, Road No.14, Baiganwadi, Govandi, Mumbai - 400 043.

... Applicant versus

1. The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Shivaji Nagar Police Station)

2. Mohd. Akhtar Mohd. Kayyum Khan R/at : Padma Nagar, Road No.14, Baiganwadi, Govandi, Mumbai - 400 043.

...Respondents

---- Mr Shreerat Kamath a/w Ms Puja Yadav i/b R.M.H. Jabali, for the Applicant.

Mr M G Patil, APP, for Respondent / State.

PSI Yamgir, Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, is present. ---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 24 June 2025 P.C.:

Heard Mr Shreerat Kamath, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Mr MG Patil, the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent /State.

2.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant apprehending arrest in CR No.74 of 2025, registered at Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 124(1), 124(2), 118(1), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS'). 3.

The prosecution alleges that on 4 February 2024, at about 5:30 p.m., the applicant while passing by the residence of the informant, was allegedly splashed with waste water leaking from the bathroom area of the informant's premises. Feeling provoked and aggrieved by this incident, the applicant returned to his nearby shop, procured an inflammable liquid and thereafter hurled the same upon the informant. It is further alleged that, while committing the said act, the applicant also issued threats of dire consequences to the informant. 4.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime, and the allegations are concocted and exaggerated. He submits that all offences alleged against the applicant are triable by a Magistrate, and the invocation of Section 124 of the BNS is legally unsustainable in the given

factual context. The learned Counsel further submits that the alleged act was not premeditated or intentional, but rather a spur-of-the-moment reaction devoid of criminal intent to cause grievous harm. He further submits that the informant did not sustain any permanent disfiguration, deformity, or irreversible bodily damage as a result of the alleged incident. Moreover, there is no specific assertion in the FIR indicating the exact part of the body where the liquid was thrown. The learned Counsel contends that the alleged inflammable liquid cannot be classified as a deadly weapon likely to cause death within the meaning of the penal provisions invoked.

5.

On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the offence is grave and serious in nature. He contends that due to the injury sustained, the informant was rendered incapable of engaging in his daily routine for a period exceeding sixteen days. The prosecution relies on medical records which corroborate the injuries mentioned in the FIR. Furthermore, there are eyewitnesses to the incident. Learned APP further submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage, and in view of the serious nature of the offence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to ensure a fair, complete and effective investigation, particularly to trace the source and composition of the alleged inflammable liquid used.

6.

Upon perusing the records, it appears that the allegations against the applicant are of a grave and serious in nature. The medical record substantiates the claim that the informant sustained burn injuries on his abdomen and arms. Additionally, the existence of the eyewitnesse's account lends further weight to the prosecution's version. At this stage, the exact nature and origin of the inflammable liquid allegedly used remain undetermined, necessitating a detailed investigation. 7.

In the totality of the circumstances, I am not inclined to accede to the submissions on behalf of the applicant that no offence under Section 124 of the BNS is prima facie made out. In cases of this nature, the custodial interrogation becomes essential to unearthening the source of the alleged inflammatory liquid. Release of the applicant on pre-arrest bail would jeoparadise the course of effective investigation. I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

8.

Accordingly, the application stands rejected. [R.N. Laddha, J.]