Bombay High Court
SHAYAD SHAIKH ABDUL SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The appellant is entitled to bail as no material on record shows his involvement in the alleged offence.
Summary
The appellant challenged a Special Court order that denied him regular bail in a case involving multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR related to an assault on the informant's husband, but the appellant argued that his name does not appear in the FIR or witness statements and that he is being falsely implicated due to a civil dispute. The State opposed bail, citing the appellant's prior criminal antecedent. The High Court examined whether there was any material linking the appellant to the alleged crime and held that, in the absence of such evidence, bail could not be denied. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was released on bail subject to a bond and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be denied under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when the accused is not named in the FIR or there is no evidentiary material linking him to the offence.
- Whether a prior criminal antecedent justifies refusal of bail in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115, 115(2), 118(1), 119(1), 140(3), 189(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 227(2), 3(5), 351(4), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14A, 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 14A
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
933 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 642 OF 2026
SHAYAD SHAIKH ABDUL SHAIKH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Nanabhau R. Thorat, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for the Respondent/State
Mr. Vishal R. Gadekar, Advocate for respondent No.3 (appointed)
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. This appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act takes exception to the order dated
24.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Court in Bail Application No.
555/2026, rejecting the application for regular bail in connection with Crime
No. 283/2025, registered with Talwada Police Station, District Beed, for the
offences punishable under Sections 115, 115(2), 140(3), 352, 351(4), 119(1),
118(1), 227(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The First Information Report indicates that an incident had occurred on
10.09.2025, in which the husband of the informant was assaulted by the
933 APEAL 642.2026.odt 1 of 3
appellants and co-accused. He was abused and assaulted by them. Offences
came to be registered against in all 12 persons.
3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that there are civil disputes
between the co-accused and the informant and, as the present appellant is a
witness to one of the civil transactions, he is being falsely implicated in the
present crime. It is his submission that the name of the present appellant is
not reflected in the First Information Report, nor is there any attribution
against him in the statements of the witnesses so as to attract the provisions of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. Learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant opposed the grant
of bail to the appellant on the ground that there is evidence to show
involvement of appellant in the crime.
5. The accused who were named in FIR are already enlarged on bail. More
particularly when there is no material on record to show the complicity of the
appellant in the crime, he cannot be denied bail. Though learned Advocate for
the informant drew the attention of the Court to the fact that there is one
criminal antecedent against the present appellant, in the absence of any
material showing his involvement in the present crime, this Court finds no
reason not to grant relief to the appellant. Hence, the following order.
933 APEAL 642.2026.odt 2 of 3
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Appellant in connection with Crime No. 283/2025,
registered with Talwada Police Station, District Beed for the
offences punishable under Sections 115, 115(2), 140(3), 352,
351(4), 119(1), 118(1), 227(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190,
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(1)
(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(g) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 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.
(iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and
when called by the Investigating Officer.
(iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.
(v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
(vi) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.
(vii) Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate
this order to the concerned Police Station.
7. The fee of the appointed counsel is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-, which
shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Authority, Sub-Committee,
Aurangabad.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
933 APEAL 642.2026.odt 3 of 3
Checking your session…