MOHD JAVEED GULAM MOHIUDDIN vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — APPLN/1850/2026

Case under Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 301. Disposed: --APPLICATION ALLOWED on 17th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030190362026

Filing Number

APPLN/4833/2026

Filing Date

08-May-2026

Registration No

APPLN/1850/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Siddheshwar Sundarrao Thombre

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Siddheshwar Sundarrao Thombre

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

17-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--APPLICATION ALLOWED

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 301

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHD JAVEED GULAM MOHIUDDIN

    Adv. Syed G R

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.AMJAD @ PAPPU AJMAL KHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Siddheshwar Sundarrao ThombreView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: APPLN/1850/2026 The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad granted bail to Amjad @ Pappu Ajmal Khan in a sword assault case after finding that investigation was complete, charge-sheet filed, and injuries certified as simple in nature. Although the applicant had criminal antecedents and a weapon was recovered, the court held that these factors alone cannot indefinitely deny bail, particularly when custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court imposed stringent conditions including a Rs.15,000 bond, territorial restrictions to District Nanded (except for court appearances), and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. APPLN/1850/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: APPLN/1850/2026 The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad granted bail to Amjad @ Pappu Ajmal Khan in a sword assault case after finding that investigation was complete, charge-sheet filed, and injuries certified as simple in nature. Although the applicant had criminal antecedents and a weapon was recovered, the court held that these factors alone cannot indefinitely deny bail, particularly when custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The court imposed stringent conditions including a Rs.15,000 bond, territorial restrictions to District Nanded (except for court appearances), and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case