[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Abdul Naved S/O Abdul Javed vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps ... on 25 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:3283
1 23-Cr.BA-79-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 79 OF 2026
Abdul Naved S/o. Abdul Javed
-- VERSUS --
The State of Maharashtra
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. D.M. Dixit, Advocate a/w. Mr. Jasprit Singh Chilotra,
Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. V.A. Thakre, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 25, 2026.
Heard.
2. The present application is filed seeking
regular bail in Crime No.680/2025 for the offence
punishable under Sections 309(6), 310, 311, 61(2)
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
(BNS), Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959,
and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951,
registered with Police Station Jaripatka, District
Nagpur.
3. As per the First Information Report,
which is lodged by Shruti Dipani, her husband, Rajiv
Dipani, a wholesale grain merchant, was returning
home on his Activa scooter after closing his office and
was carrying cash of approximately Rs. 50,00,000/-
in a bag. It is alleged that near Opal Sheraton
2 23-Cr.BA-79-2026
Apartment, on the road from Bezonbagh to Kadbi
Chowk, two unknown persons on a motorcycle
intercepted him. One of them allegedly sprayed a
substance towards his face and attempted to snatch
the bag. During the incident, shots were fired, and
one bullet struck him on the back, causing serious
injuries. The assailants allegedly fled with the bag
carrying cash. The injured was initially taken to a
private hospital and thereafter shifted to another
hospital for further treatment. On the basis of these
allegations, the F.I.R. was registered against unknown
persons.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
applicant submits that the only incriminating
circumstance against the applicant is the call record
details. He submits that he was in touch with accused
- Jishan and accused - Hussain. As the applicant had
taken Rs.20,000/- from Javed Hussain, therefore,
they were threatening the applicant continuously
compelling him to pay the amount. He further
submits that apart from this, there is nothing in the
charge-sheet to connect the present applicant with
the crime. The applicant is the auto driver and,
therefore, he is plying his auto on the road from one
place to another and, therefore, the allegations that
the applicant has given information about the
movement of victim - Rajiv Dipani from whom the
3 23-Cr.BA-79-2026
other accused persons have looted the amount of
Rs.50,00,000/-, is baseless and no material is
available on record to connect the present applicant
with the crime. Therefore, as the applicant is in jail
since 16/09/2025, he be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.
vehemently opposes the application. He submits that
the applicant is in contact with the accused - Javed
Hussain since 08/09/2025. Even on the day of
incident, there are three calls between the applicant
and co-accused - Javed Hussain, i.e., at about 17:20
p.m., 17:25 p.m., and 17:28 p.m. He further submits
that there are also calls between applicant and
another co-accused - Jishan, wherein there are 10
calls between them from 20:27 p.m. to 21:10 p.m.
According to the learned A.P.P., and considering the
defence of the accused that he was to pay
Rs.20,000/- to Javed Sheikh cannot be believed, on
the contrary, he has given the details about
movement of victim Rajiv Dipani. He further submits
that there are serious allegations against other co-
accused and it is on the tip of the present applicant
that the other accused intercepted the victim and
snatched Rs.50,00,000/- from him, and therefore, he
prayed to reject the bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions.
Admittedly, the present applicant was involved in the
4 23-Cr.BA-79-2026
crime on the basis of the statement of co-accused -
Javed Sheikh, however, that statement is
inadmissible. It is further to be noted that on the day
of the incident, no doubt, there were calls between
the applicant and the co-accused persons, however,
unless and until, the said fact is proved, that for what
purpose the call was made, it appears that only on
this fact the applicant cannot be put behind bar for
further period. It is further to be noted that there is
no material to show that the applicant was following
the victim - Rajiv Dipani and he has given the
movement details of Rajiv Dipani to other co-accused.
Considering this fact, and the fact that the applicant
is in jail since 16/09/2025 and the fact that the
investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, I am
inclined to grant bail to the present applicant on
imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following
order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is
allowed;
(ii) The applicant/accused (Abdul
Naved S/o. Abdul Javed) be released on regular
bail in connection with Crime No.680/2025 for
the offence punishable under Sections 309(6),
310, 311, 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (BNS), Sections 3, 25 and
27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 135 of
5 23-Cr.BA-79-2026
the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, registered
with Police Station Jaripatka, District Nagpur, on
his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/-
(Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) with one
solvent surety in the like amount;
(iii) The accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case, as also shall not tamper with the
evidence;
(iv) The accused shall provide his
residential address and cell number to Police
Station concerned and shall not change his place
of residence without prior intimation to the
Investigating Agency;
(v) The accused shall attend each and
every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend
the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to
comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default
would entail the State to ask for cancellation of
bail or even trial Court suo moto take
cognizance of this and cancel the bail;
(vi) Pending Misc. Application(s), if
any, also stand disposed of.
7. The observations of this Court are prima
facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be
influenced by the observations of this Court and the
6 23-Cr.BA-79-2026
observations are restricted to this bail application
only.
[ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ]
Piyush Mahajan
