Bombay High Court

Sohail Ayub ShaikhversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 7 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The revision application is infructuous and therefore dismissed.

Summary

The applicant, Sohail Ayub Shaikh, filed a criminal revision application challenging the proceedings in the case involving Vaishali, the State of Maharashtra and Anr., and Anil Tikam. The court noted that a charge had already been framed against the applicant. On this basis, the court held that the revision application could no longer be entertained. Consequently, the revision was declared infructuous and disposed of. The court also directed payment of legal aid fees to the counsel appointed for Respondent No.2 as per the applicable rules.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal revision application remains maintainable after a charge has been framed against the applicant

Subjects

criminal revision
charge framing
infructuous
legal aid

Judgment

                                                                               35-REVN-165-2026 (CR).doc


                   Tikam


                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. NO. 165 OF 2026
                           Sohail Ayub Shaikh                               ...Applicant/s
                           Versus
VAISHALI                   The State Of Maharashtra and Anr.                ...Respondent/s
ANIL                       _________________________________________________________________
TIKAM
                           Mr. Mithilesh Mishra i/by Agastya Desai, Advocate for Applicant.
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI                Mr. S.R. Agarkar,APP for Respondent-State.
ANIL TIKAM
Date:                      Ms. Komal Sinha, Advocate for Respondent No.2 appointed advocate
2026.10.08
18:12:53 +0530             through Legal Aid.
                           PSI Sateshd Kalbhor, Trombay Police Station present.
                           _________________________________________________________________

                                                              CORAM        :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                              DATE         :   7th OCTOBER, 2026.
                           P.C. :
                           1.         Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and

                           learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

                           2.         Learned APP submit that the charge has been framed against

                           the Applicant.

                           3.         Considering this fact, the Criminal Revision Application has

                           become infructuous.

                           4.         Revision Application is disposed of as become infructuous.


                           5.         Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 is appointed through

                           Legal Aid by this Court. Whatever remuneration is fixed for the counsel

                           appointed through Legal Aid be paid as per the Rules.


                                                                         (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

                                                           Page 1 of 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.