Aryan Haroon Sayyad v. State Of Maharashtra

1 917-ABA 2709-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2709 OF 2025 Aryan Haroon Sayyad ... Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ----- Mr. Abhinav Dubey a/w Chintan Patel, Ankit D., Amit Tiwari for the Applicant.

Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent-State. API T. M. Rathod, IO, Bazarpeth Police Station, Thane City is present. ----- CORAM :

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

01ST OCTOBER 2025 P.C. :

Digitally signed by MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date:

2025.10.04 17:13:01 +0530 1.

This is an Application for anticipatory bail. MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE 2.

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.437 of 2025 registered with Bazarpeth Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 22, 29, 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3.

On 18th July 2025 the co-accused in present Crime were apprehended and they were found in possession of 110 grams of Mephedrone (M.D.). During the interrogation, they disclosed that they purchased the said contraband from the present Applicant for the purpose of sale.

4.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Learned APP for the Respondent-State.

Mugdha

2 917-ABA 2709-25.doc 5.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that there is no material to show that the co-accused were in the contact of the present Applicant. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation as nothing is to be recovered from the present Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, in support of the submission that the statement of coaccused cannot be used at the stage of anticipatory bail, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P Krishna Mohan Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh1.

6.

On the other hand, Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that the statement of co-accused can be taken into consideration at the stage of bail. It is submitted that the Applicant is involved in nine more crimes of serious nature. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary to find out the source or from where the said contraband was procured by the Applicant.

7.

It can not be said at this stage that the Applicant is not at all involved in the alleged crime. The Applicant is involved in nine more cases of serious nature. Considering the nature of crime, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 598 Mugdha