Judgment · High Court · 2025
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 07 Aug 2025
- Bench
- URMILA JOSHIPHALKE
- Neutral citation
- 2025:BHC-NAG:8617
Provisions considered
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 3, 7, 25, 25(1)(a), 25(1B)(a), 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 s. 3(5)
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 s. 142
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, it is true that the criminal antecedents are not sufficient to reject the application of the present applicant, but the criminal antecedents are to be mentioned by the applicant in the application. As…
Judgment
Mr. K. S. Motwani, Counsel for the applicant through video conferencing. Mr. V. A. Thakare, APP or non-applicant/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 07/08/2025
Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.155/2025 registered with Police Station Lakhni, District Bhandara for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 3, 27, 25(1B)(a), 25(1)(a) and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, the applicant approached this Court for grant of pre- arrest bail.
The crime is registered on the basis of secret information received by the investigating agency on 30.04.2025 on an allegation that four wheeler Maruti Suzuki Ciaz bearing No. MH-31.-EU- 1678, which is proceeding and carrying country-made (2) 912.aba.564.2025 revolver and cartridge in the said vehicle, at that time, the said vehicle was intercepted and four accused persons in the vehicle were taken into custody, from them, the firearms were seized. During interrogation with them, the name of the present applicant was revealed.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that except the statement of the other accused, there is no other material to connect the present applicant with the alleged incident and therefore, he be protected by granting anticipatory bail.
Learned APP strongly opposed the said application and submitted that there are seven offences registered against the present applicant of a similar nature. The applicant has suppressed the fact that he is facing the trial under the provisions of the MCOC Act. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.
On hearing both sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, it is true that the criminal antecedents are not sufficient to reject the application of the present applicant, but the criminal antecedents are to be mentioned by the applicant in the application. As far as the present applicant is concerned, it is only one criminal antecedent is mentioned in the application. In fact, there are seven (3) 912.aba.564.2025 criminal cases are registered against him and one case vide Crime No.11/2021 invoking the provisions under the MCOC Act, is also not mentioned in the application. On that ground itself, the application deserves to be rejected, as the applicant has suppressed the material facts from the Court, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the present applicant by granting anticipatory bail. In view of that, I proceed to pass following order: ORDER The application is rejected. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 7, 25, 25(1)(a), 25(1B)(a), 27; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5); Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 142.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 07 Aug 2025. The bench was URMILA JOSHIPHALKE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.