Bombay High Court
SATTAR NANNU SHAIKH AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail must be granted when the alleged offence is bailable and the applicants are not named in the FIR, as there is no substantive ground to deny bail.
Summary
The applicants, Sattar Nannu Shaikh and Shahrukh Sattar Shaikh, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, fearing arrest in connection with a robbery case (C.R. No.170 of 2026). The FIR alleged that unknown persons broke into a house and stole valuables, and the applicants were accused only of harbouring the robbers, a bailable offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution argued that the applicants were involved in harbouring accused persons, while the defence highlighted the lack of any direct allegation against them in the FIR and their clean criminal record. The court examined the nature of the alleged offence, the bailability of the charge, and the absence of the applicants’ names in the FIR, concluding that the case did not warrant denial of bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing the applicants to furnish a personal bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties and imposing conditions for reporting to police and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- What is the applicability of Section 482 of the BNSS in granting anticipatory bail for a bailable offence?
- Whether the allegation of harbouring robbers, a bailable offence, justifies denial of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 254, 305, 309(4), 331(4), 3(5)
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 142
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bailable offence
- harbouring
- Section 482
- BNSS
- BNS
- Maharashtra Police Act
Judgment
36-ABA-2028-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2028 OF 2026
Sattar Nannu Shaikh & Anr. …Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Harsh Kashyap (through Video Conferencing), for the
Applicants.
Mr. S. V. Walve, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicants and Mr. Walve, learned APP appearing for the
Respondent-State.
2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking pre-arrest bail
in connection with C.R. No.170 of 2026 registered with Bhosari
MIDC Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, for the offences
punishable under Sections 331(4), 309(4), 305 and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”). Section 254 of the BNS
Page 1
Sonali
36-ABA-2028-2026.DOC
and Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 have also
been added subsequently.
3. It is the main submission of Mr. Kashyap, learned Counsel
appearing for the Applicants that the only allegation against the
Applicants is that they were involved in harbouring robbers or
dacoits. The said offence is bailable. There are no criminal
antecedents against the Applicants.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Walve, learned APP strongly opposes
the Anticipatory Bail Application. He submits that the Applicants
are involved in harbouring accused persons, who are involved in a
serious crime.
5. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.2 of the
order dated 18th June 2026, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, passed in Criminal Bail
Application No.511 of 2026, which reads as under:
“2. The First Information Report was lodged by
the informant, Maina Arjun Gaysamudre, on
28/03/2026, alleging that on 28/03/2026 at
about 3.00 a.m. two unknown persons allegedly
Page 2
Sonali
36-ABA-2028-2026.DOC
committed house breaking at her daughter’s
residence and committed theft of cash worth
Rs.15,300/- two mobile phones, gold
mangalsutra worth Rs.25,000/-. Her daughter
resisted the act. At that time one of the accused
assaulted her with hand and fled away from the
spot. The matter was reported to the police. The
applicants are apprehending arrest at the hands
of police and so they filed the present application
for protection.”
6. Perusal of the record shows that the Applicants are not
named in the FIR. No role is attributed to them in the FIR.
7. As far as the two accused who are involved in the crime of
house trace-pass/house breaking and committing robbery and theft
have already been arrested.
8. As far as the Applicants are concerned, the only allegation
against them is that they harboured the main accused. The said
offence is bailable offence. However, as the FIR has been registered
under Sections Sections 331(4), 309(4), 305, 254 and 3(5) of the
BNS and Section 254 of the BNS and Section 142 of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 have been added subsequently, the
Applicants apprehend their arrest. However, even as per the
prosecution case, the only allegation against the Applicants is that
Page 3
Sonali
36-ABA-2028-2026.DOC
they harboured the robbers, which is bailable offence. Even as per
the prosecution case, the Applicants are not involved in the offence
of robbery.
9. Accordingly, the case is made out for grant of Anticipatory
Bail. In view thereof, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(a) In the event of arrest of the Applicants- Sattar Nannu
Shaikh and Shahrukh Sattar Shaikh in connection
with C.R. No.170 of 2026 registered with the Bhosari
MIDC Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune, the
Applicants are directed to be released on bail on their
furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each
with one or two solvent sureties each in the like
amount.
(b) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police
Station twice in a month i.e. on 1st and 3rd Monday
between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. till conclusion of
the trial.
(c) The Applicants shall furnish their cell phone number
Page 4
Sonali
36-ABA-2028-2026.DOC
and residential address to the Investigating Officer
and shall keep the same updated, in case of any
change thereto.
(d) The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat, or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
such a person from disclosing the facts to the Court or
to any Police personnel.
(e) The Applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not contact or influence the
Complainant or any witness in any manner.
10. The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.09.23
10:49:14
+0530
Page 5
Sonali
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.