Bombay High Court
MOHAMMAD MOSIN YASIN SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding no sufficient ground to deny it.
Summary
The applicant, Mohammad Mosin Yasin Shaikh, was charged with offences under the IPC, POCSO Act and Dowry Prohibition Act for alleged sexual assault, cruelty, and dowry harassment against his wife and her seven‑year‑old son. The FIR was lodged almost ten months after the alleged incidents, and the trial court had refused bail. The applicant argued that the delay was due to marital disputes and that the allegations were false. The State contended that despite the delay, the victim’s statement and her son’s testimony established a prima facie case. The judge noted the long delay, the possibility that the allegations were motivated by a matrimonial dispute, and the applicant’s lack of flight risk, and consequently granted bail with strict conditions. The bail order emphasized that it does not prejudice the trial’s outcome.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint defeats the existence of a prima facie case for granting bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under IPC, POCSO and Dowry Prohibition Act warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 377, 406, 498A, 500, 504, 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 10, 12, 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- POCSO
- dowry prohibition
- domestic violence
- delay in filing FIR
- prima facie case
- flight risk
Judgment
P.H. JAYANI 12 BA2278.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2278 OF 2026
Mohammad Mosin Yasin Shaikh …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents
Mr. Shivamsinh Deshmukh a/w. Adv. Dwarkesh B. Chavda
for the Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State
(through VC).
Ms. Komal Sinha, appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. R.G. Gujar, PSI, Malad Police Station, present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
Mr. Deshmukh tendered a copy of DV proceedings filed by
Respondent No.2 and a copy the whats app chats between the
Applicant and Respondent No.2. It is taken on record (‘X colly’).
2. The present application seeking release of the applicant on
bail in connection with Cr.No.743/2024 registered with Malad
Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections
498A, 406, 504, 506, 323, 500, 377 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (“IPC”); Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”) and, Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the Report dated 02.09.2024
filed by Respondent No.2 (“the victim”).
3. The prosecution case is that, at the relevant time, the victim
was a divorcee and having a son aged 7 years. In December, 2018
the applicant and the victim came in contact with each other.
Page 1 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 12 BA2278.2026.DOC
Gradually, they became friends and it led to establishing a love
relationship between them. Meanwhile, the applicant went to
Saudi Arabia for work. In the year 2022 he returned. Thereafter,
the two got married with each-other on 11.05.2023. After the
marriage, the couple used to reside at Malad (W) along with
parents of the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant committed
sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and also
committed unnatural sex with her. It is alleged that the applicant
used to show an obscene video to the son of the victim and tell him
to involve with him in similar act. Between August 2023 to
November 2023, the applicant alongwith his parents, subjected
the victim to cruelty. They defamed her alleging that she has no
fidelity. It is alleged that in October, 2023 at about 7:30 p.m., in
his house the applicant committed penetrative sexual assault on
the child. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered and
the applicant was arrested. On completion of the investigation,
police submitted the charge-sheet. The trial Court refused to
release the applicant on bail. Hence, this Application.
4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that after dissolution of the 1 st marriage, the victim performed the
2nd marriage. However, she suppressed that fact and, without
getting that marriage dissolved, she married with the applicant.
Therefore, there used to be disputes between them and, the victim
left his company. Thereafter, the victim filed the DV proceedings
and she then lodged this Report. There is one year delay in filing
the Report which is not explained. Therefore, the narration in the
FIR is false and the Applicant is innocent.
5. In reply, Mr. Khan, the learned APP and Ms. Sinha, the
learned Counsel for the victim submitted that although there is
Page 2 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 12 BA2278.2026.DOC
delay in filing the FIR, the entire offence is well narrated in the
Report, statement of the victim and his son. Therefore, there is a
prima facie case of the applicant having committed this offence
and he is not entitled for bail.
6. I have considered these submissions. It is a fact that the
alleged cruelty and the sexual assault was committed by the
applicant between August 2023 to December 2023. Thereafter, the
victim alongwith her son went to her mothers place. She then filed
the DV proceedings on 24.06.2024. Therein, she alleged the said
offence. Yet, soon thereafter, she did not file the report. Finally,
the Report was filed on 02.09.2024, i.e., almost 10 months after
the incident. Therefore, it appears that the matrimonial dispute
between the parties led to filing of the DV proceedings and the
present Report. The Report clearly state that, twice the victim had
conceived child from the applicant. Consequently, it is difficult to
say that there is a prima facie case against the applicant of having
committed the alleged offence. The applicant is behind bars for
last one year. The trial will take its own time to conclude. The
applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
7. In the wake of above, I am inclined to release the applicant
on bail. Hence, following Order :-
(i) The applicant - Mohammad Mosin Yasin Shaikh be
released on bail in Cr.No.743/2024 registered with Malad
Police Station, Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
Page 3 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 12 BA2278.2026.DOC
(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Malad
Police Station, Mumbai once in three months between 11:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.
(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence the
prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in case
there is any change.
(vi) The applicant shall not contact the victim and shall
not reside/enter in the vicinity where the victim is residing.
(vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
Application and should not influence the outcome of the
trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
8. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
PREETI
HEERO
JAYANI (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.09.23
14:17:13 +0530
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…