Firoj Jafar Ali Khan v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 252 OF 2026 Rehan Shabbir Qureshi ...Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra
...Respondent
VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM _________________________________________________________________ by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date:
2026.04.29 14:44:24 +0530 Mr. Ashraf Kazi a/w. Tanmay Kate a/w. Prajyot Shinde i/by V.V. Dushing, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM
: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 27th APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :
1.
Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State.
2.
By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 206 of 2025 registered with Yerwada Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(6), 111, 3(5), of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short 'BNS') and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act. 3.
It is prosecution's case that during period November, 2024 to 23/03/2025 Applicant by threatening and compelled the minor son of the first informant to bring the gold ornaments from his house and they mortgaged the said gold ornaments around 84 tolas. 4.
It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that
Applicant is behind bars for more than one year and one month. The first informant's son brought the said gold ornaments on his own. Applicant never threatened him. There is no progress in the trial and requested to allow the application.
5.
It is contention of learned APP that Applicant and co-accused threatened first informant's minor son to bring gold ornaments. The gold ornaments recovered at the instance of the applicant. Applicant has one antecedent. If he is released on bail, he may threaten the first informant and prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application. 6.
I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.
7.
Applicant is behind bars for more than one year and one month. At the time of incident, first informant's son was around 15 years' old. To prove the case against the Applicant, trial is required. Though Applicant has one antecedent, it is of the year of 2017. It may take time to conclude the trial.
8.
Considering these facts, I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The Applicant- Rehan Shabbir Qureshi be released on bail in Crime No. 206 of 2025 registered with Yerwada Police Station, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the
like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall not enter in jurisdiction of Yerwada Police Station till recording of evidence of the first informant and his son. (iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (v) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.
(vi) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)