Bombay High Court

SHAFIQ NOORAHMED SHAIKH AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted as the investigation is complete, the appellants have no criminal antecedents, and Section 18 of the Atrocities Act does not apply to the facts.

Summary

Shafiq Noorahmed Shaikh and his co‑accused Azhar Shamshoddin Shaikh were charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for alleged assault, use of an iron rod and alleged caste‑based abuse during a road‑rage incident on 29‑04‑2026. Both appellants sought bail; Shafiq’s anticipatory bail was rejected and Azhar’s pre‑arrest bail applications were also rejected in lower courts. The appellants argued that the FIR was lodged nine days after the incident, indicating false implication, and that the case was a sudden altercation without prior enmity, rendering Section 18 of the Atrocities Act inapplicable. The State contended that the offences were serious, involving caste‑based insults, and relied on a Supreme Court precedent to bar bail. The High Court, noting that the investigation was complete, the charge‑sheet filed, the appellants had no prior record, and that evidence did not substantiate caste‑based abuse, held that bail could be granted and allowed both appeals, directing bail on a personal bond of Rs.15,000 with surety.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of nine days in lodging the FIR indicates false implication and warrants bail.
Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 bars the grant of bail in the present facts.
Whether the alleged incident constitutes a serious offence justifying continued custody despite the appellants' clean record.
Whether the investigation being complete and charge‑sheet filed obviates the need for further detention.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 118(1), 119(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 18, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a)

Subjects

bail
anticipatory bail
regular bail
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Atrocities Act
caste‑based violence
road rage
FIR delay
Section 18
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42340
Criminal appeal no. 487.2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2026

1 Shafiq Noorahmed Shaikh
2. Shaikh Azhar Shamshoddin ..Appellants

Versus

1.The State of Maharashtra
2. The Superintendent of Police
3. Pranav Sanjay Dilpak ...Respondents
...
Mr. A. S. More, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent State
Ms. S. R. Kasture, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 (Appointed)

WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 652 OF 2026
Azhar Shamshoddin Shaikh ...Appellant

Versus

1.The State of Maharashtra
2. Pranav Sanjay Dilpak ...Respondents

Mr. V. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appeallant
Mr. S. S. Tambe, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondent -State
...

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026

P. C. :

1. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that in Criminal Appeal No. 487

of 2026 stood disposed of as withdrawn qua Appellant No. 2, as per this

Court’s order dated 19.06.2026. Later, appellant no. 2 filed Criminal Appeal

No. 652 of 2026 for seeking regular bail.

Page 1 of 7
Criminal appeal no. 487.2026.odt

2. By way of Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2026, the Appellant no. 1 i.e.

Shafiq Noorahmed Shaikh apprehends arrest in connection with FIR bearing

Crime No. 189 of 2026, registered on 08.05.2026 at Dharashiv City Police

Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 119(1), 352,

351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections

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

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”) .

Additionally, the Appellant No. 1 takes exception to the order dated

09.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court,

Dharashiv, in Criminal Bail Application No. 242 of 2026, whereby the

application for anticipatory bail of Appellant No. 1 came to be rejected.

3. Whereas, co-accused-Azhar Shamshoddin Shaikh had moved Criminal

Bail Application No. 253 of 2026 for pre-arrest bail, which was rejected by

the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court. Thereafter, the co-accused

approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2026, which was

subsequently withdrawn qua appellant No. 2. Following the withdrawal, the

co-accused filed Criminal Bail Application No. 306 of 2026 before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharashiv, however, upon the filing of

the charge-sheet, the said bail application was rejected vide order dated

17.07.2026. Furthermore, the co-accused filed a subsequent bail application

in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2026 before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Dharashiv, which was also rejected on 30.07.2026. Therefore, co-

Page 2 of 7
Criminal appeal no. 487.2026.odt

accused, namely Azhar Shamshoddin Shaikh filed Criminal Appeal No.652

of 2026 for seeking regular bail.

4. According to the First Informant, Pranav Sanjay Dilpak, the alleged

incident occurred on 29.04.2026 at Dharashiv. It is stated that while the

informant was riding a Honda Shine motorcycle bearing registration No.

MH-25-AR-4272 along with his elder brother, Vinayak Sanjay Dilpak, from

their residence at Tuljapur Naka towards their business establishment,

"Vinayak Traders," carrying cash, Appellant No. 1, Shafique @ Gafique

Noorahmed Shaikh, wrongfully intercepted their vehicle with his

autorickshaw. Appellant No. 1 alighted from the rickshaw, targeted

Vinayak's saffron-colored shirt, and uttered intentional caste-based abuses

before physically assaulting and pushing him. Shortly thereafter, co-accused

Azhar Shamshoddin Shaikh and S. U. Sayyed joined the altercation. Co-

accused Azhar Shaikh allegedly retrieved an iron rod from the nearby

"Bullet Raja Garage," struck the informant on his head causing severe

injuries, and issued death threats. While the informant was injured, the

accused repeatedly assaulted Vinayak with kicks and blows while continuing

to hurl caste-based insults. In the course of the incident, co-accused Azhar

Shaikh forcibly dispossessed the informant of Rs.16,000/- kept in his shirt

pocket. On these allegations, the subject FIR came to be registered against

the appellants.

Page 3 of 7
Criminal appeal no. 487.2026.odt

5. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be

filed before the learned Trial Court, bearing Charge-Sheet No. 128 of 2026,

on 07.07.2026.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there is an

unexplained delay of 9 days in lodging the FIR, the incident occurred on

29.04.2026 while the FIR came to be registered only on 08.05.2026 which

prima facie indicates deliberation and false implication. It is further

submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers

from a total non-application of mind. The alleged incident appears to be a

sudden case of road rage between strangers, bereft of any prior enmity or

motive, and the subject FIR has been lodged as a counter-blast. It is also

pointed out that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has

already been filed, no further recovery is to be made from the Appellants,

and the Appellants have no criminal antecedents. Having regard to these

circumstances and the stage of the proceedings, the continued incarceration

of the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 652 of 2026 is not warranted.

Consequently, both the appeals deserve to be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned APP for state and Learned Counsel for Informant

strongly opposed the appeals. It is argued that the charges are serious,

involving a physical assault with an iron rod and the forcible taking of cash.

It is contended that the delay in filing the FIR is due to the informant being

Page 4 of 7
Criminal appeal no. 487.2026.odt

busy with CET and NEET examinations. It was further submitted that

explicit caste-based abuses were hurled in public view, thereby attracting

the statutory bar against the grant of bail under Section 18 of the Atricities

Act. Learned counsel for the informant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble

Surpreme Court in case of Kiran v/s Rajkumar Jinnah Jain and others,

MANU/SC/1222/2025.

8. Perusal of the investigation papers shows that the informant sustained

one simple injury whereas the Appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No. 487 of

2026, Shafiq Noorahmed Shaikh, had sustained injuries in the course of the

very same incident (vide MLC No. PPO/839/26) and was admitted to the

Government Medical College and Hospital, Dharashiv, from 29.04.2026 to

01.05.2026, as evidenced by the discharge certificate produced before this

Court. Prima facie the injuries caused to both sides indicate that it is a case

of sudden road-rage, altercation on the road between the parties. There is

no allegation against the appellants of casteist abuses against the informant

and the statements of witnesses are contrary to the first informants’

contention as the witnesses do not state the abuses. Furthermore, there is

substance in the contention of counsel for appellant No. 1 in Criminal

Appeal 487 of 2026, about non-application of provisions of atrocities act and

thereby embargo under section 18 of the Atrocities Act not being applicable

to the case.

Page 5 of 7
Criminal appeal no. 487.2026.odt

9. Since the investigation is already complete and the charge-sheet came

to be filed, no further custody of the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 652

of 2026 is required. Considering that the Appellant has no criminal record,

keeping him in custody is not warranted.

10. In view of the above, both the appeals stand allowed in following

terms:-

ORDER

(i) In the event of arrest of appellant no.1-Shafiq
Noorahmed Shaikh in Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2026, in
connection with Crime No. 189/2026, registered with
Dharashiv City Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 118(1), 119(1), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections 3(1)(r),
3(2)(v-a), and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, shall be
released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like
amount.
(ii) Appellant-Azhar Shamshoddin Shaikh in Criminal Appeal
No. 652 of 2026, in connection with Crime No. 189/2026,
registered with Dharashiv City Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 118(1), 119(1), 352, 351(2), and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(2)(v-a), and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, shall be
released on bail on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.15,000/-

Page 6 of 7
Criminal appeal no. 487.2026.odt

(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount.
(iii) They shall attend the concerned police station as and when
called by the Investigating Officer.
(iv)They shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iv) They shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(v) They are further directed to cooperate with the
investigating agency for further investigation.
(vi) Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this
order to the concerned Police Station.

11. The fees of the appointed counsel Ms. S. R. Kasture in Criminal

Appeal No.487/2026 are quantified at Rs. 10,000/-

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani

Page 7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…