Bombay High Court
Rashid Azizbhai Fazlani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 8 September, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
32 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.670 OF 2025
Rashid Azizbhai Fazlani ..Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Another ..Respondents
.....
Shri. D. M. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicant
Shri. S. K. Shirse, APP for the Respondent / State.
Ms. Kavita S. Bhale, Advocate for the Informant
.....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
Dated : SEPTEMBER 08, 2025
PER COURT :-
. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant, the learned APP for
the State and the learned Advocate for the Informant.
2. On 01.03.2025 the Informant lodged the Report with the
Sindkhed Police Station, Dist. Nanded that on 26.02.2025 at 02:18 p.m.
he received missed call from one unknown Mobile No.8390095850. The
Informant called back on the said number. The Applicant received the
Informant's call. The Applicant called the Informant at one Maa
Complex at Sarkhani village. The Informant went there. The Applicant
demanded Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) from the Informant and
threatened that, he will inform the Police to perform raid to stop the
work of the Informant. The Applicant showed one video of Matka to the
2
Informant and threatened that, he will share the said video with the
Police. Under the threat, the Informant parted Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten
Thousand) with the Applicant. Thereafter, the Informant lodged the said
Report and Crime bearing No.31/2025 came to be registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 308 (2), 308 (3) and 351 (2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNS')
against the Applicant.
3. According to the learned Advocate for the Applicant, the
Applicant is the Reporter and Whistleblower. There is delay of three (3)
days in lodging the said FIR by the Informant. The said Report was the
counter blast to the Report lodged by the Applicant with the same Police
Station against the Informant on 26.02.2025. The Informant used filthy
words for the Applicant over the phone. The Applicant is issued
certificates for his outstanding work as the Reporter. The Applicant had
abided by the conditions imposed by this Court in the interim order.
The Investigation can be completed without custody of the Applicant.
He therefore prayed that, the interim order be confirmed.
4. It is submitted by the learned APP that prima facie case is made
out against the Applicant from the FIR. There are criminal antecedents
against the Applicant and therefore, the Application be rejected.
3
5. The Application is opposed by the learned Advocate for the
Informant. She supports the contentions made by the learned APP.
She submitted that, the Applicant is having criminal past and one
offence of Attempt to Murder is registered against the Applicant. There
is prima facie case against the Applicant and therefore, the Application
be rejected.
6. Perused the papers on record. The case of the Prosecution is that,
the Applicant extorted Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) from the
Informant by threatening him to inform the Police about the work of the
Informant. Though the incident as mentioned in the FIR is dated
26.02.2025, the Report is lodged with the concerned Police Station on
01.03.2025 i.e. after a period of three (3) days. The papers show that
on 26.02.2025 the cognizable Report was lodged by the Applicant with
the same Police Station bearing No.48/2025 against the Informant for
the offence punishable under Section 351 (4) and 3 (5) of the BNS.
From this the possibility of false implication or after thought Report
against the Applicant cannot be ruled out. The Chart made available by
the learned Advocate for the Applicant shows that, in Crime No.
46/2002 the Applicant has been acquitted, in Crime No.29/2005 the
Applicant has been convicted and released on Probation of Offenders
Act, in FIR No.10/2003 no Charge-sheet was filed, in Crime No.16/2011
'C' summery was filed and two FIRs bearing Nos.265/2023 and 35 of
4
2025 are pending. Considering the nature of offence alleged against the
Applicant and in view of the above observations, the criminal antecedent
by itself cannot form the basis to reject the Application. The Applicant
was protected by Interim Order dated 02.05.2025 on certain conditions.
It is nobodies case that the Applicant had flouted any of the conditions.
In this view of the matter, I am inclined to confirm the interim order.
Hence the order.
ORDER
(i) The Interim order dated 02.05.2025 is confirmed.
(ii) The Application stands disposed off.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) GGP Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/09/2025 19:59:03