WASIM SALIM SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                                BA.1545.2026.doc

Ajay

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1545 OF 2026

       Wasim Salim Shaikh                               .. Applicant
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Anr.                    .. Respondents
                                   ....................
        Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w. Ms. Abhilasha Pawar i/b. Sumit Patil,
          Advocates for Applicant.
        Mr. Waqar Pathan a/w. Creesh Jain i/b. Wesley Menezes,
         Advocates for Respondent No.2.
        Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
        API – Mr. Shrikant Sangharshi, Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune
         City.
                                   ......…...........
                                  CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                  DATE     : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026.
       P.C.:


       1.       Heard Mr. Nikam, learned Advocate for Applicant, Mr.

       Pathan learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Gotad, learned

       APP for Respondent No.1– State.


       2.       Present Applicant is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya

       Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Applicant in connection with FIR

       being CR No.285 of 2025 registered at Sahakarnagar Police Station,

       Pune City for the offences punishable under Section 142, 143(2),

       118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.




                                                                         1 of 6
                                                         BA.1545.2026.doc


3.        Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.5 in the present crime.

Victim – Respondent No.2 was 17 years old at the time of incident.

Name of Applicant is disclosed two and a half months after filing of

First Information Report (FIR).


4.        Prosecution case is that victim was lured from her home

country to work in India by her sister arraigned as Accused no.1 under

the false promise of offering work in a beauty parlour. Victim traveled

from Bangladesh to Pune via Kolkatta and her arrival in Pune was

confined to a flat belonging to the Applicant by the other co – accused

persons. Victim claims to have been assaulted by her sister and forced

into prostitution by Accused Nos.1 - 4. She states that she traveled to

different places in Budhwarpeth and Balajinagar and was rescued by

an NGO. Case of prosecution against Applicant is that after victim

arrived in Pune she met Applicant after which she was taken to a hotel

in Pune which belonged to Applicant and thereafter handed over to the

other accused persons. Principal case of prosecution is that the flat

where victim was confined belonged to the Applicant and the other co

– accused persons were working under him.


5.        Mr. Nikam has taken me through the material appended in

the chargesheet and argued that nexus of the Applicant qua the crime

in question is prima facie not evident.




                                                                  2 of 6
                                                          BA.1545.2026.doc


6.        PER CONTRA, Ms. Chavan, learned Advocate of Respondent

No.2 – Prosectrix would vehemently argue against grant of bail to the

Applicant on the ground that in view of Applicant’s role in providing

residence and protection to the other co - accused persons, he is likely

to re offend himself, tamper with material evidence and also likely to

influence the prosecution witnesses. He would submit that Application

be rejected and trial be expedited and most importantly because the

Applicant has a similar antecedent in the past he is all the more likely

to re offend himself by indulging in the same crime which is

detrimental to the Society at large.


7.        I have considered the submissions and the record in the

charge-sheet placed before the Court. It is prima facie seen that, the

Victim does not name the present Applicant in the present FIR copy of

which is appended at page No.75 of the Petition. Next it is seen that in

the further statement recorded on 31.08.2025, once again the

Applicant is not named therein at all. It is seen that Applicant’s name

surfaces for the first time in the Victim’s Section 183 of BNSS

statement recorded on 18.09.2025 i.e. two months after the

registration of FIR where the only role attributed to Applicant is that

he told Accused No.1 her elder sister to send her to a different

location. Next it is seen that the Victim records her second Section 183

statement on 17.10.2025 wherein she improvises further and states

that Applicant used to collect money from the other co – accused

                                                                   3 of 6
                                                           BA.1545.2026.doc


persons and the other co – accused persons worked with the Applicant

however in this statement she has referred to the Applicant by a

different name Wasim Salim Reza and not by his correct name being

Wasim Salim Shaikh.


8.          It is seen that Applicant is the owner of Hotel Mama Cafe

located at Budhwarpeth, Pune and in March 2025 the said cafe was

given to one Ramesh Sarkar for conducting the business and

prosecution has failed to record his statement because the victim has

alleged that when she came to Pune the Applicant had taken her to

that Hotel. Most importantly Applicant is identified by the victim in her

third statement recorded on 02.12.2025, copy of which is appended at

page No. 251 on the basis of a photograph and prosecution has failed

to conduct the Test Identification Parade.


9.          In view of the aforesaid dichotomy and improvement in the

Victim’s own statements over a period of 5 months and no material

prima facie incriminating evidence shown from the chargesheet at this

prima facie stage, Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

Needless to state that Applicant’s complicity in the crime will be proven

at trial.


10.         In view of the above observations arrived at after perusing

the FIR, statement of the Respondent No.2 and the material appended

in the Chargesheet, prima facie there is no material placed on record to


                                                                    4 of 6
                                                             BA.1545.2026.doc


persuade me to continue the incarceration of Applicant in prison.


11.           Having regard to all the above aspects, I am inclined to

grant bail to the Applicant on the following conditions:

       (i)       Applicant – Wasim Salim Shaikh is directed to be

       immediately released on bail from prison in connection with

       C.R. No. 285 of 2025;


       (ii)      Applicant    is directed to be released on bail on

       furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or

       two sureties in the like amount;


       (iii)     Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the

       concerned Police Station once every month on the third Sunday

       between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the first six months and

       thereafter as and when called;


       (iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and

       attend the Trial Court on all dates unless specifically exempted

       and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so,

       it will entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of this

       order;


       (v)      Applicant shall not leave the country without prior

       permission of the Trial Court;




                                                                      5 of 6
                                                                       BA.1545.2026.doc


                  (vi) Applicant shall not influence        any of the witnesses or

                  tamper with the evidence in any manner;


                  (vii) Applicant shall not make any attempts to contact the First

                  Informant / victim or any witnesses by any physical or

                  electronic means and attempt to influence them or tamper with

                  evidence in any manner;


                  (viii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of

                  his current address and mobile contact number and / or change

                  of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;


                  (ix) Applicant shall not attempt to contact the victim either

                  physically or by any electronic devices / means until the trial is

                  completed and the verdict is delivered by the Trial Court; and


                  (ix) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail the

                  prosecution to seek cancellation of this order.


       12.               It is clarified that the observations made in this order are

       limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any

       observations on merits of the case and the trial shall be adjudicated on

       its own merits in accordance with law.


       13.               Bail Application is allowed and disposed.



                  Digitally signed
                                                         [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
                  by RAVINDRA
       RAVINDRA   MOHAN
       MOHAN      AMBERKAR
       AMBERKAR   Date:
Ajay              2026.09.24
                  15:43:08 +0530




                                                                                6 of 6