Bombay High Court
MOIZ JAVED SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicants with conditions, finding no specific evidence linking them to the crime and deeming the prolonged detention unjustified.
Summary
The High Court considered three bail applications arising from a single robbery and assault case (Crime No. 302 of 2023) in Nashik, where the accused were alleged to have intercepted a vehicle, smashed its glass, robbed the occupant, and assaulted him with a sickle. The prosecution alleged the applicants were members of a gang and posed a risk of threatening witnesses, while the defense argued there were no specific allegations against the applicants, no prior criminal record, and that they had been in custody for over two and a half years with a delayed trial. The Court examined the charge‑sheet and found that the main accusations were directed at another accused (Bashi‑Shivam) and that evidence linking the applicants to the crime was lacking. Considering the prolonged pre‑trial detention and the absence of concrete evidence, the Court decided that bail could be granted subject to strict conditions to prevent tampering or intimidation. The bail was ordered on execution of a personal bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties, and the applicants were directed to cooperate with the police and not influence witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants, alleged participants in a robbery and assault, should be granted regular bail despite the prosecution’s claim of gang involvement and risk to witnesses.
- Whether the lack of specific allegations and evidence against the applicants, coupled with prolonged pre‑trial detention, warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 4
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 307, 323, 395, 504, 506
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)
- Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- robbery
- assault
- organized crime
- trial delay
- presumption of innocence
- conditions of bail
Judgment
14-BA-2066-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2066 OF 2025
Moiz Javed Shaikh ….Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent
With
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.814 OF 2025
Bhauyu @ Satyam Sanjit Dhenwal ….Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent
With
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3279 OF 2024
Sudhanshu @ Sonu Rajesh Bed ….Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Aniket Vagal along with Ms. Savvy Kolhekar and Ms. Juhi Kadu,
Advocate for Applicant in BA/2066/2025.
Mr. Akshay Kataria along with Mr. Devang V.Thaki, Advocate for the
Applicant in BA/3279/2024.
Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate for the Applicant in BA/814/2025.
Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent-State.
ACP-Sangita Nikam, Nashik Road Division, Nashik City, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
SHUBHADA DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026.
SHANKAR P.C. :
KADAM
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.02.10 Page 1 of 4
17:44:10 +0530
14-BA-2066-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
1. These three applications are arising out of the same crime,
hence, I am deciding these applications by this common order :
2. By these applicants, the applicants are seeking regular bail in
Crime No. 302 of 2023 registered with Upnagar Police Station, District
Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 395, 323, 504, of
506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 4, 25 of the Arms Act, Section
135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, Sections 3()(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
3. It is prosecution’s case that on 24th July 2023, when the first
informant was proceeding in his car, his car was intercepted by the
applicants and co-accused, and they smashed the glass of his car and
robbed an amount from his shirt’s pocket. It is alleged that the applicants
assaulted the first informant with a sickle with the intention to kill him.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the
there are no criminal antecedents against applicants -Moiz and Sudanshu.
The main allegations are against accused No.1-Bashi-Shivam. There are no
specific allegations against the applicants. They have not assaulted the
first informant. The first informant has not received any injury in the said
assault. The applicants are behind bars for more than two years and six
months. The investigation is completed, charge-sheet has been filed. It will
take time to conclude the trial and requested to allow the applications.
Page 2 of 4
14-BA-2066-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
4 It is contention of learned APP that the applicants are members
of a gang and they used to rob the people travelling on the road. If the
applicants are released on bail, they may threaten the first informant and
prosecution witnesses, and hence, requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard all the learned counsel, perused charge-sheet and
documents produced on record. The main allegations are against accused
No.1-Bashi @ Shivam. There are no specific allegations against the present
applicants. To prove the role of the applicants in the crime, evidence is
required. The applicants are behind bars for more than two years and six
months. There is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass
following order.
ORDER
(i) The applicants be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 302 of 2023
registered with Upnagar Police Station, District Nashik, on
executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt
to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any
person concerned with the case.
Page 3 of 4
14-BA-2066-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
The applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and are
accordingly disposed of.
6. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…