IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2025
Dist - Mumbai
Majid Anwar Khan ] ...Applicant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra ] ...Respondent
INDEX
Sr. No. Particulars Pg Nos.
1. Synopsis A-B
2. Criminal Application
3. EXHIBIT “A”
Copy of the Miscelleous order
copy 04.04.2025
4. Exhibit “B”
Copy of the bail order dated
11.06.2021
5. Exhibit “C”
Copy of the exterment order of
the co-accused Shams Ali
Sayyed
6. Exhibit “D”
Copy of the N.C Complaint
against the Shams Ali Sayyed by
the Applicant and his brother
and mother
7. Vakalatnama
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2025
Dist - Mumbai
Majid Anwar Khan Ansi ] ...Applicant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra ] ...Respondent
SYNOPSIS
Sr. No. Date Particulars
1. 07.05.2021 The alleged incident took place.
2. 07.05.2021 The FIR came to be registered at
the instance of JJ. Marg Police
Station vide CR NO 176 of 2021
u/s 307, 326, 324, 506, 188,269
r/w 34 of IPC 135 r/w 37(3) of
Maharashtra Police Act u/s 27 r/w
3,5 of Arms Act and u/s 51 (B) of
National Disaster Act
3. 11.06.2021 The Applicant granted bail by the
Hon’ble Sessions Court.
4. Hence the present Application
POINTS TO BE URGED
1. Whether this is a fit case where the Order passed by
the Hon’ble Sessions Court may be set aside?
ACTS AND RULES TO BE CITED
1) Indian Penal Code
2) Criminal Procedure Code
3) Constitution of India
Advocate for the Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _____ OF 2023
Dist: Mumbai
Majid Anwar Khan ]
Aged – 46 Years ]
R/o. Room No. 16/14/16, ]
Mirza Ali Street, Imam Wada Road ]
Foto Manzil No. 06, Chinch Bunder, ]
Mumbai ]…Applicant
V/s
The State of Maharashtra ]
(At the instance of J J. Marg ]
Police Station Vide C.R. No. ]
176 of 2021) ]… Respondent
TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND OTHER PUISINE JUDGES OF
HON’BLE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
HUMBLE PETITION U/S 482 AND
ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OF
[Link]
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1) The Criminal Application is filed by the Applicant
above named challenging the order dated
11.06.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Sessions
Court at Mumbai Exhibit No. 4 in Sessions Case
No. 1076 of 2023. Here to annexed and marked
as Exhibit “A” is the copy of the Order.
2) The Applicant states that he was arrested on in
present C.R No. 176 of 2011 and the
chargehseet was filed and thereafter he was
released on bail by the Hon’ble Sessions Court
on 11.06.2021. Here to annexed and marked
as Exhibit “B” is the copy of the order.
3) The Applicant states that while granting a bail the
Hon’ble Sessions Court he put an condition i.e.
condition no. (5)The Applicant-Accused shall
shall not enter into the vicinity of Dongri till
further order.
4) The Applicant states that he has filed an
Application before the Hon’ble Sessions Court
i.e. Exhibit No. 4 in Sessions Case No. 1076 of
2023 for modification of bail order dated
11.06.2021 clause no. 5 which came to be
rejected.
5) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
04.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Sessions
Court at Mumbai in (Exhibit) No. 04 in
Sessions Case No. 1076 of 2023, the
Applicant prefers this Application on the
following amongst other grounds:
a. The Applicant states that the said order is
making the applicant suffers from various
defects and court has not applied mind
while rejecting the Application.
b. The Applicant states that the Applicant’s
wife and family members reside in the
Dongri area, which has been the
Applicant’s permanent place of residence
since birth. The condition restraining him
from entering Dongri has effectively
separated him from his family and home for
the last four years. This amounts to a grave
injustice, especially when the object of bail
conditions is to secure the presence of the
accused and not to impose indirect
punishment or cause undue hardship.
c. The Applicant states that such prolonged
exclusion from his place, without any
demonstrated misuse of liberty or threat
perception, violates the Petitioner’s
fundamental right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. It is also contrary to the principles
of reasonableness and proportionality in
imposing bail conditions.
d. The Applicant states that there was total 4
accused in the same FIR and three
accused were granted anticipatory bail and
in that no such condition was imposed to
the co-accused by this Hon’ble court.
e. The Applicant states that Informant Danish
Ismail Supariwala and other injured person
has amicably settled the dispute with the
present Applicant and have no objection if
the Applicant is allowed to enter into the
said area and they are ready to file the
affidavit for the same before this Hon’ble
Court.
f. The Applicant states that while rejecting the
Application the court has considered the
Exh 5, 5A and 5B by Shayams Ali Sayyed
who is also the accused in the present FIR
and he is the son-in-law of the present
Applicant’s brother and due to the family
disputes and to make him stay away from
the ancestral house he has filed an bogus
complaint against the present Applicant.
g. The Applicant states that the court has
considered the complaint which is filed by
the Shyams Ali Sayyed, but the
Respondent i.e. Sir J.J Marg Police Station
on 19.12.2022 has passed an externment
order against Shayms Ali Sayyed for 22
cases registered against him. Here to
annexed and marked as Exhibit “” is the
Externment order copy.
h. The Applicant states that the Applicant and
his brother and mother has filed an multiple
N.C Complaint against the Shams Ali
Sayyed and for the grudges he has filed an
N.C Complaint against the present
Applicant and Sir J.J police without
investigation filed an N.C Complaint against
the present Applicant. Here to annexed
and marked as Exhibit “” is the copy of
the N.C Complaint filed by the present
Applicant and his brother and mother
i. The Applicant states that the Informant and
other witness has not filed an single
complaint or N.C against the present
Applicant that present Applicant has
threatened or violated the condition but the
court while arguing the same has not been
considered the same.
j. The Applicant states that her mother is
widow senior citizen aged 72 years who is
fully dependent him and his family and just
to take care of her and for the medical
purpose he used to visit the house which is
at Dongri and that also he has not
threatened to any witness or informant, just
to take care of her widow senior citizen
mother he visited and the same has been
captured by the Shayams Sayyed and he
falsely filed a letter to Sir J.J Police Station.
k. The Applicant states that from entering into
the area has caused grave hardship and is
unjustified especially when the actual
complainant has no objection, and when
the Applicant has not misused bail in any
manner.
l. The Applicant states that Learned Sessions
Court has failed to appreciate the settled
principle of law that bail conditions should
not be excessive, arbitrary, or
unreasonable, and must not curtail
fundamental rights beyond what is
necessary for the purpose of justice.
m. The Applicant states that the Ld. Court did
not consider the fact that the original
complainant and informant had no
objection to the modification of bail
conditions, which is a relevant and material
circumstance that ought to have been
considered while deciding the application.
n. The Applicant states that the co-accused
has filed a false complaint at MRA Marg
Police Station solely with a view to harass
the Applicant, and instead of examining this
post-bail development and its implications,
the Court erroneously held the Applicant
culpable without any inquiry.
6) No Application is filed before this Hon’ble Court
or in any other Court.
THE APPLICANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT:
i)That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and
set aside the order dated 04.04.2025 i.e. Exhibit 4 in
Sessions Case No. 1076 of 2023 passed by the
Hon’ble Sessions Court and modify and relaxation of
the condition No. 5 of the bail order dated 11.06.2021
passed by the Hon’ble Sessions Court at Mumbai in
the Bail application no 1343 of 2021 on any terms
and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper.
ii) Any such other order or orders be passed as this
Hon‘ble court may deem fit and proper.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT
SHALL DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY
Mumbai
Dates this day of April, 2025
Advocate for the
Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATON NO. OF 2025
Majid Anwar Khan …Applicant
V/S
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
HUMBLE PETITION U/S 482 AND ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA OF
[Link]
Dated this day of April, 2025
Anjali Patil
Advocate for the Applicant
101, 12 Bake House, First Floor,
M.C.C. Lane, Behind Rhythm House,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 023
