Bombay High Court

SHADAB JAVED SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: SACHIN S DESHMUKH

Holding

The Court held that the statement of a juvenile co‑accused is not substantive evidence and, in the absence of sufficient material, the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered the bail application of Shadab Javed Shaikh, arrested for offences under Sections 3, 7, 9, 25(8) and 29 of the Arms Act after a raid recovered a country‑made revolver and live cartridges. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on the statement of a juvenile co‑accused and the seized weapon, while the defence argued that the co‑accused’s statement is not substantive evidence and continued detention would be unjustified. The Court noted that a co‑accused’s statement, especially from a juvenile, does not constitute substantive evidence and that there was insufficient material to justify pre‑trial incarceration. Since the investigation was complete, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant. Consequently, bail was granted on a cash and surety bond of Rs 50,000 with conditions not to tamper with witnesses and to appear in court as required.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the prosecution’s reliance on the statement of a juvenile co‑accused and seizure of a firearm.
Whether the statement of a co‑accused, particularly a juvenile, constitutes substantive evidence for denying bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(8), 29, 3, 7, 9

Subjects

bail
Arms Act
co‑accused statement
juvenile offender
pre‑trial detention
surety

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7267
                                                             Bail Appln.No.2520/2025
                                           :: 1 ::




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                          BAIL APPLICATION NO.2520 OF 2025


            Shadab Javed Shaikh                      … APPLICANT

                    VERSUS

            The State of Maharashtra                 … RESPONDENT

                                            .......
            Ms S.G. Sonawane, Advocate for applicant
            Ms R.R. Tandale, A.P.P. for respondent – State
                                            ....…

                                   CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                   DATE     : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026

            PER COURT :


            1.         The applicant seeks release on regular bail in

            connection with Crime No.1049/2025, registered with Shrirampur

            City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable

            under Sections 3, 7, 9, 25(8), 29 of the Arms Act.


            2.         The prosecution case is that, on the basis of secret

            information, two persons were found roaming in suspicious

            condition. A country-made revolver in the dicky of the bike and live
                                                Bail Appln.No.2520/2025
                                :: 2 ::


cartridges were found. A raid was conducted at the house of the

present applicant in which a country-made revolver and live

cartridges were kept on the wall of the house. The firearms came

to be seized and accordingly crime came to be registered against

the said two persons along with present applicant.


3.          Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the

implication of the present applicant is on the basis of statement of

the co-accused who is a juvenile in conflict with law. The recovery

is effected. As such, further incarceration of the applicant would be

unjustified. Hence, prayed to allow the application.


4.          Per contra, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the

application contending that, the applicant is involved in carrying

arms with the help of juvenile accused and as such, if the applicant

is released on bail, he would indulge in similar offences. Hence,

prayed to reject the application.


5.          Upon considering the submissions advanced by learned

counsel for both the sides and perusal of the material on record,

arrest of the applicant is prima facie effected on the basis of the

statement of the co-accused, who are juvenile in conflict with law.

Moreover, it is settled principle of law that, statement of co-accused
                                                  Bail Appln.No.2520/2025
                                  :: 3 ::


is not substantive evidence. Furthermore, the recovery of weapon

(gun) has already been made. In that view of the matter, as there

is no sufficient material on record, the prolonged pre-trial

incarceration of the applicant is unjustified.


6.            Nevertheless, the investigation is complete for all

intents and purpose. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to

exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.


7.            Hence the order :


                              ORDER


(i)       Bail Application is allowed.

(ii)      The applicant Shadab Javed Shaikh be released on bail

          on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

          Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount in

          the above crime, on the conditions that :

        (a)      The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution

                 witnesses in any way.

        (b)      The applicant shall remain present on each date,

                 unless exempted by the trial Court.

(iii)     Needless to state that, the observations rendered herein

          are confined to the present application, and the trial Court
                                              Bail Appln.No.2520/2025
                             :: 4 ::


        shall decide the trial on its own merits and in accordance

        with law.



                                 (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)




fmp/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…