SYED AHMED ALIAS GOLU SAYED AZAM AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — APPLN/1147/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226, 227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030379732025

e-Filing Number

17-09-2025

Filing Number

WP/9863/2025

Filing Date

18-Sep-2025

Registration No

APPLN/1147/2026

Registration Date

18-Sep-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay S. Waghwase

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Criminal Application

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226, 227
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) Section 482
Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 307, 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SYED AHMED ALIAS GOLU SAYED AZAM AND ANOTHER

    Adv. GHANEKAR NILESH S.

  2. 2.SYED AMAN SYED AZAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

    Adv. GAIKWAD ASHOK PRAKASHRAO FOR R/2,PP WAIVES FOR R/1 1123

  2. 2.SHAIKH AYUB SHAIKH NOOR

    Adv. GAIKWAD ASHOK PRAKASHRAO

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Abhay S. WaghwaseView PDF

    Case Summary: APPLN/1147/2026 The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed the criminal appeal and quashed the conviction of two young men (ages 19 and 21) for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC. The court found the parties had reached a genuine, voluntary settlement, with the injured victim himself appearing before the court confirming amicable resolution and requesting compounding of the offense. The court applied Section 482 CrPC to quash the conviction based on: (1) genuine settlement deed signed by both parties; (2) the injured party's voluntary support for compounding; (3) minimal criminal antecedents; (4) conviction primarily resting on the injured's testimony, who now sought reconciliation; and (5) reliance on recent Supreme Court precedent endorsing settlement in non-compoundable offenses. Appellants were acquitted but ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 costs to a cancer hospital. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More,hon'ble Shri Justice Abasaheb D. ShindeView PDF

  4. 07-Jan-2026

    Urgent Circulation-Criminal

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  5. 10-Dec-2025

    Urgent Circulation-Criminal

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  6. 26-Nov-2025

    Urgent Orders -Criminal

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandipkumar C. More , Hon'ble Shri Justice Y. G. Khobragade

  7. 15-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. B. Suryawanshi,hon'ble Justice Vaishali Patil-JadhavView PDF

  8. 15-Oct-2025

    For Admission - Fresh - Criminal Side Matters

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar

  9. 25-Sep-2025

    Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi,hon'ble Shri Justice Hiten S. VenegavkarView PDF

  10. 25-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 18-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. APPLN/1147/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: APPLN/1147/2026 The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed the criminal appeal and quashed the conviction of two young men (ages 19 and 21) for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC. The court found the parties had reached a genuine, voluntary settlement, with the injured victim himself appearing before the court confirming amicable resolution and requesting compounding of the offense. The court applied Section 482 CrPC to quash the conviction based on: (1) genuine settlement deed signed by both parties; (2) the injured party's voluntary support for compounding; (3) minimal criminal antecedents; (4) conviction primarily resting on the injured's testimony, who now sought reconciliation; and (5) reliance on recent Supreme Court precedent endorsing settlement in non-compoundable offenses. Appellants were acquitted but ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 costs to a cancer hospital. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case