Bombay High Court

IBRAHIM DADABHAI SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: MEHROZ K PATHAN

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant subject to stringent conditions.

Summary

Ibrahim Dadabhai Shaikh applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in FIR No. 0832 of 2025 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the POCSO Act, including alleged caste‑based abuse, outraging the modesty of a 17‑year‑old SC/ST victim and theft. The applicant contended that the allegations were exaggerated and stemmed from long‑standing property disputes, citing a counter‑FIR filed by a relative. The State and the victim opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the risk of further disturbance. The court noted the possibility of false implication but held that the concerns could be addressed by imposing strict conditions. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail on the condition of a personal bond, sureties, regular reporting to police, non‑entry into the village, and non‑interference with witnesses, while disposing of the application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving serious offences such as outraging the modesty of a SC/ST minor under the SC/ST Act and POCSO Act.
Whether the existence of prior property disputes and alleged false implication warrants bail.
Whether imposing stringent conditions can mitigate the risk of the accused tampering with evidence or disturbing public order.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 119(1), 189(2), 190, 191(1), 351(2), 352
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 8
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
SC/ST Act
POCSO Act
caste‑based violence
false implication
property dispute
bail conditions
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:3944

927 ABA NO. 1619 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1619 OF 2025
Ibrahim Dadabhai Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
…
• Ms. Gargee Gujare, Advocate h/f. Ms. S. G. Sonawane,
Advocate for Applicant
• Mr. R. K. Ingole, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State
• Mr. Smita Kasture, Advocate (appointed)for Respondent No. 2 -
Victim
…
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATED : 28.01.2026

PER COURT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned APP for

the respondent-State as also learned appointed counsel for

respondent No. 2 – victim.

2. The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest

in connection with FIR No. 0832 of 2025, dated 31.07.2025,

registered with Rahuri Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the

offences punishable under Sections 119(1), 189(2), 191(1), 190,

115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under

Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012.
Jhs/ 1/6
927 ABA NO. 1619 OF 2025

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant is the

victim aged about 17 years. On 31.07.2025 at about 11:00 a.m., at

Rahuri, District Ahilyanagar, a group of persons including the

applicant/accused Nos.1 to 7 were allegedly involved in a dispute

with the victim’s family. It is alleged that while the accused were

constructing a wall near the victim’s house, the victim’s father

objected claiming ownership of the land, whereupon the accused

allegedly made caste-based remarks stating that the land did not

belong to a Bhil and abused the victim and her family members using

casteist slurs. It is further alleged that the applicant/accused No.2

Ibrahim grabbed the victim’s hand and pulled her towards him,

thereby outraging her modesty. It is also alleged that the victim’s

mother was assaulted when she attempted to intervene and that

accused No.3 Dadabhai snatched a gold chain from her neck. After

villagers gathered at the spot, the accused allegedly issued threats to

kill and left the scene. Thereafter, the FIR came to be lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to previous

enmity and property disputes between the parties, the applicant has

been falsely implicated with exaggerated allegations. It is submitted

that no incident of sexual assault or outraging of modesty has

occurred. It is pointed out that a counter FIR bearing Crime No. 834

of 2025, arising out of the same incident, has been registered on the

Jhs/ 2/6
927 ABA NO. 1619 OF 2025

complaint of Salman Lalabhai Shaikh, relative of the applicant. It is

further submitted that several criminal cases are pending between the

parties relating to Gut No. 205, and that the informant’s family also

has criminal antecedents. The applicant is willing to abide by any

conditions imposed by this Court.

5. As against this, the learned APP as well as the learned

appointed counsel strongly oppose the present application on the

ground that the applicant is involved in a serious offence of outraging

the modesty of a woman belonging to the SC/ST category. Though

several disputes are pending between the complainant’s family and

the applicant’s family, the same by itself cannot be a ground for

granting bail, particularly when serious allegations are levelled

against the applicant. The offence is punishable with imprisonment

for life. Hence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

It is further submitted that there is every likelihood that, if released

on bail, the applicant may again disturb law and order in the vicinity,

as both parties are already engaged in property disputes.

6. I have gone through the investigation papers made available by

the learned APP. Perusal of the First Information Report reveals that

the allegations of assault are against all the other accused persons,

the present applicant is specifically alleged to have outraged the

modesty of the complainant.

Jhs/ 3/6
927 ABA NO. 1619 OF 2025

7. It further appears that several FIRs have been lodged between

the Jadhav family and the applicant’s family. Crime No. 1144 of 2023

has been registered at Rahuri Police Station on the complaint of

Nanasaheb Jadhav. Crime No. 132 of 2022 has also been registered

against Shivaji Jadhav under Section 353 of IPC at the instance of a

family member of the applicant. Further, Crime No. 250 of 2023 has

been registered at Rahuri Police Station against Nanasaheb Jadhav

and Jaggu @ Jagannath Jadhav, wherein the complainant is the

present applicant, Ibrahim Dadabhai Shaikh. Additionally, a counter

FIR bearing Crime No. 834 of 2025, arising out of the same incident,

has been lodged by Salman Shaikh, a relative of the applicant,

against the complainant (father of the victim) and other accused

persons, including accused No.4 therein.

8. Considering that there are longstanding disputes between the

victim’s family and the applicant’s family, false implication and

exaggeration of allegations against the present applicant cannot be

ruled out. However, these observations are made only for the purpose

of deciding the present application and shall not influence any other

Court.. The apprehensions expressed by the learned APP and the

learned appointed counsel can be sufficiently addressed by imposing

stringent conditions. Hence, the following order :-

Jhs/ 4/6
927 ABA NO. 1619 OF 2025

ORDER
i. In the event of arrest of the applicant Ibrahim Dadabhai
Shaikh, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a P.R.
bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, in
connection with FIR No. 0832 of 2025, registered with
Rahuri Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences
punishable under Sections 119(1), 189(2), 191(1), 190,
115(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, and
Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, on the following
conditions:-
A) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station
and report to the Investigating Officer on 3rd, 4th,
10th, 11th, 17th and 18th February, 2026, between
12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m., and thereafter as and
when called, till filing of the charge-sheet, if any.
B) The Applicant shall also cooperate with the
investigation.
C) The applicant shall not enter Village Pimpri Valan,
Taluka Rahuri, District Ahilyanagar, till filing of the
charge-sheet.
D) The Applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
E) The applicant shall furnish copies of his Aadhaar Card
and PAN Card to the Investigating Officer along with
addresses and mobile numbers of two nearest
relatives.

Jhs/ 5/6
927 ABA NO. 1619 OF 2025

9. Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions

may entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail granted

herein above.

10. The observations made herein are prima facie and shall not

influence the Trial Court or any other Court while deciding the case

on its own merits.

11. Fees of the learned appointed counsel, Ms. Smita Kasture,

representing Respondent No.2 – Victim, shall be paid as per the

schedule of fees prescribed by the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-

Committee, Aurangabad, expeditiously.

12. In view of the above, the application stands disposed of.

13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )

Jhs/ 6/6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…