The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has granted anticipatory bail to an applicant facing allegations of gutka seizure, emphasizing the absence of evidence connecting him to the crime. The Court also issued a show cause notice to the investigating officer for allegedly making false claims about the applicant's criminal antecedents.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Firoj Ahmedsab Patwekar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 93/2026 registered at Police Station Udgir Rural, District Latur. The FIR alleges offences under Sections 123, 223, 274, 275 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, following a raid conducted on 24.02.2026 where contraband gutka was seized.
Key Facts
- The applicant is sought to be arrested based on the statement of a co-accused, with no further evidence connecting him to the crime.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record, as confirmed by his counsel and an undertaking to file an affidavit to this effect.
- The investigating officer's report claimed the applicant had serious crimes registered against him and was likely to abscond, which the Court found to be false and a misrepresentation.
Procedural History
- 24.02.2026: Raid conducted at the applicant's premises; contraband gutka seized.
- 16.07.2026: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 614 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench).
- 16.07.2026: Order reserved and passed on the same day.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought protection from arrest and release on bail, subject to conditions, while the investigating officer's report regarding his antecedents was scrutinized.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the applicant's apprehension of arrest was justified in the absence of evidence connecting him to the crime, and whether the investigating officer's report about his antecedents was credible.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant's counsel argued that:
- There was no evidence beyond the co-accused's statement to connect the applicant to the crime.
- The applicant had no criminal history, as evidenced by his undertaking to file an affidavit.
- The investigating officer's report alleging serious crimes and likelihood of absconding was false and misleading.
For the Respondent
The learned APP opposed the application, citing:
- The seriousness of the offences alleged.
- The investigating officer's report indicating serious crimes registered against the applicant and his likelihood to abscond.
- The absence of instructions from the investigating officer regarding the applicant's antecedents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the record and found that there was no evidence to connect the applicant with the crime. It observed that the co-accused's statement alone, without corroborative evidence, was insufficient to justify arrest. The Court also noted that the investigating officer's report claiming serious crimes against the applicant was unsubstantiated and appeared to be a misrepresentation.
"Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there is no evidence to connect Applicant with the crime. When co-accused has made statement against Applicant, in absence of any further investigation and any other evidence to connect him with the crime, his liberty deserves to be protected."
The Court further held that the investigating officer's report was false on its face and amounted to a misrepresentation to the Court. It directed the investigating officer to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him for making false statements.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed:
- Release of the applicant on a PR bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of the like amount, in the event of arrest.
- The applicant to attend the concerned police station as and when required.
- The applicant to not contact witnesses directly or indirectly and not interfere with the evidence.
- The applicant to cooperate with the investigating agency for further investigation.
Additionally, the Court issued a show cause notice to the investigating officer to explain the false statements made in the report and directed appropriate action if the statements were found to be false. The matter was stood over to 17.07.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Without Evidence
- The judgment reaffirms that anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement without corroborative evidence.
- Courts must scrutinize police reports and investigating officer's claims to prevent misuse of power.
False Police Reports Invite Judicial Scrutiny
- The Court's direction to issue a show cause notice to the investigating officer underscores the judiciary's commitment to accountability in criminal investigations.
- Practitioners should highlight discrepancies in police reports and challenge unsubstantiated claims in bail applications.
Liberty Trumps Unsubstantiated Allegations
- The judgment reinforces that personal liberty is paramount and cannot be curtailed based on vague or false allegations.
- Applicants with no criminal history should proactively file affidavits to dispel unfounded claims about their antecedents.
