Bombay High Court
AZIZ MOHD. ISMAIL SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHYAM C CHANDAK
Holding
The bail application was rejected as there exists a strong prima facie case against the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Aziz Mohd. Ismail Shaikh, who is alleged to be the step‑father of an 11‑year‑old girl and accused of penetrative sexual assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, alleging a personal dispute with the informant, who is the victim's mother. The prosecution presented the victim’s recorded statement and medical evidence describing obscene video exposure, disrobing, inappropriate touching, and penetrative assault, establishing a strong prima facie case. The court found no material to suggest false implication and held that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court clarifying that its observations pertain solely to bail and not to the merits of guilt.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the prima facie evidence of sexual assault under B.N.S. and POCSO statutes.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351, 65(2), 75, 76
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 10, 12, 4, 6, 8
Subjects
- bail
- sexual assault
- child protection
- POCSO
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- prima facie case
- stepfather
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HEMANT H.C.SHIV 1.BA4678.25.DOC
CHANDERSEN
SHIV
Digitally signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HEMANT CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.08.10
18:16:54 +0300 BAIL APPLICATION NO.4678 OF 2025
Aziz Mohd. Ismail Shaikh …. Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Francis A. Caszo for the Applicant.
Ms. Anagha Deshmukh, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.
Ms. Vilasini Subramanian for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Prabhat Mankar, Oshiwara police station present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 6th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with
C.R. No.345 of 2025, registered with Oshiwara police station,
Mumbai for offence punishable under Sections 65(2), 75, 76 and
351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “B.N.S.”) and
under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO Act”), as the
trial Court declined his prayer for bail.
3. Mr.Caszo, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that
in the year 2023, the husband of the informant from the 1 st
Marriage was in jail. Therefore, the Applicant used to reside with
the informant to help her. Thereafter, the two got married with
each other on 31.10.2023. However, when the husband of the
informant was released from jail, the informant and her husband
wanted to get rid of the Applicant, and therefore, the informant
Page 1 of 3
H.C.SHIV 1.BA4678.25.DOC
and her husband have falsely implicated the Applicant in this case.
Therefore, the Applicant may be released on bail.
4. Ms.Deshmukh, learned APP for Respondent No.1-State and
Ms.Subramanian, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted
that there is a prima facie case against the Applicant of having
committed the alleged offence. Therefore, bail be refused.
5. I have considered these submissions. Record shows that, the
informant is mother of the ‘victim girl’ aged 11 years 7 months. The
Applicant is step father of the victim. On 22.03.2025, at about
17.30 hours, the informant went to her job and returned at 4.00
hours of 23.03.2025. At about 9.00 hours, when the informant
was about to leave for work, the victim was crying and she
requested the informant that not to go for work. On enquiry, the
victim told the informant that the Applicant subjected her to
penetrative sexual assault.
6. The statements of the victim recorded that, to commit the
offence, first, the Applicant showed the victim an obscene video on
his mobile phone. He then disrobed her clothes and
inappropriately touched her chest and genital. Further, he
committed penetrative sexual assault inserting finger in her
genital, with a specific physical object and also through mouth.
The version of victim recorded before the police is corroborated by
the history narrated by her to the Medical Officer. Thus, there is a
strong prima facie case against the Applicant having committed a
serious offence. There is nothing on record based on which it may
be said that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in this crime.
7. In view thereof, the Application is liable to be rejected and is
rejected, accordingly.
Page 2 of 3
H.C.SHIV 1.BA4678.25.DOC
8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are
confined to determination of the question of bail and they may not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise
of the Applicant and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any
of the observations made hereinabove.
9. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…