Bombay High Court
MOHAMMAD JAVED HAFIZ SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail was granted because the prosecution failed to produce substantive evidence and the allegations were deemed wild and unsubstantiated.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Mohammad Javed Hafiz Shaikh, accused No.2 in a case involving alleged assault and sexual offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution’s case was based on a complaint alleging physical assault and a video recording, but the court found no substantive evidence, no medico‑legal report, and the FIR was described as wild and unsubstantiated. The court also noted a prior non‑cognizable complaint by the accused’s brother, suggesting a possible grudge. Given the lack of material evidence and the speculative nature of the allegations, the court deemed the bail application well‑founded. Consequently, the applicant was released on bail with specified conditions. The order also directed payment of legal aid fees for the appointed advocate.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in the absence of substantive evidence.
- Whether the FIR and the prosecution’s allegations are sufficient to justify continued detention.
- Whether the presence of a prior grievance and lack of medico‑legal evidence affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 351(3), 352, 64(2)(f), 77
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(E)
- Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998 — s. Regulation 18(1)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- insufficient evidence
- FIR
- sexual assault
- video evidence
- legal aid
- Maharashtra
Judgment
87. BA-3440-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3440 OF 2026
Mohammad Javed Hafiz Shaikh .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Shubham Gharbudave a/w Mr. Nagraj Tarade & Ms. Snehal
Sapkale, Advocates for Applicant
Mr. Amit K. Munde, APP for State
Ms. Saili Dhuru, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2
Mr. Ramesh Shelar, PSI, Kondhwa Police Station, Pune
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Gharbudave, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr.
Munde, learned APP for State and Ms. Dhuru, learned Advocate
(appointed) for Respondent No. 2.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular Bail in connection with C.R.
No. 74/2026 dated 03.02.2026 registered with Kondhwa Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 77,
351(3) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS") and Section 66(E) of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
1 of 5
87. BA-3440-26.odt
3. Applicant before me is arraigned as accused No. 2 in the present
crime. The prosecution case stems from the complaint lodged on
03.02.2026 by the victim alleging a series of episodes of assault which
are stated in the said statement. I have perused the same. Applicant is
the younger brother of accused No. 1 who is the husband of the
Complainant. Accused No. 1 has been enlarged on bail. Applicant is a
young person of 26 years of age. Serious allegations of having physical
intercourse and other serious allegations have been leveled against the
Applicant. It is also stated in the prosecution complaint that video
recording had been done of the alleged acts. However, the same is
nothing but a mere bald allegation without any substantiation
whatsoever and the prosecution has also not been able to show any
incriminating material to that extent.
4. There is precursor incident incidentally whereby there is a non-
cognizable complaint lodged against the Complainant and her family
members for assaulting the accused No. 1 who is the husband of the
Complainant. Threats have been exchanged by the parties. There is
prima facie material to show that the accused No. 1 i.e. husband of the
Complainant has been repeatedly assaulted by the Complainant and
her family members and there is prima facie proof of the same in the
form of videos recorded by the Applicant. Hence the grudge against
the Applicant is evident. Save and except the statement of the
2 of 5
87. BA-3440-26.odt
Complainant, there is no other material whatsoever neither the
medico-legal examination report supports the case of the prosecution
in any respect whatsoever in order to indict the Applicant before me.
5. The manner in which the FIR has been worded cannot be
accepted at face value, primarily because the allegations are extremely
wild, serious and if they are to be sustained, there has to be some
element of proof of some facts and details to be brought to the notice
of the Court. That being absent, I am inclined to accept the case of the
Applicant for grant of bail. Hence, the Applicant is released on bail on
the following terms and conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released on bail
from prison in connection with C.R. No. 74 of 2026;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
concerned Police Station, once every month on the first
Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
3 of 5
87. BA-3440-26.odt
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact No. and / or
change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time
to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
6. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in
the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
7. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Dhuru,
learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the
cause of Respondent No. 2. Her fees be paid by the High Court Legal
Aid Services Authority as per rules on production of a server copy of
this order and other compliances in accordance with the decision of
this Court in the case of Sanjyot Nitin Telharkar v. The State of
4 of 5
87. BA-3440-26.odt
Maharashtra & Anr.1 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1) of the
Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998.
8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.10.09
21:06:20 +0530
1 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of 2024
5 of 5
Checking your session…