Bombay High Court
SALIM VAJIR PATHAN AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The Court held that in the absence of clear incriminating material linking the applicants to the offences, they cannot be compelled to stand trial and must be discharged.
Summary
The applicants, Salim Vajir Pathan and others, filed criminal revision applications under Section 227 CrPC seeking discharge from three POCSO cases where a Special Judge had rejected their earlier discharge applications. They argued that the charge‑sheet contained only a single incriminating statement about providing financial assistance for a marriage and no substantive evidence linking them to the offences of sexual assault and related IPC crimes. The State opposed, contending that the seriousness of the offences against minor victims warranted prosecution and that sufficient material existed to frame charges. The Court examined the charge‑sheet and found the applicants' role in the alleged crimes was not clearly established and the evidence was insufficient to justify a trial. Consequently, the Court allowed all revision applications, quashed the impugned orders, discharged the applicants, and cancelled any bail bonds.
Issues considered
- Whether the charge‑sheet contains sufficient incriminating material to justify framing charges against the applicants under the POCSO Act and IPC provisions.
- Whether the applicants are entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the absence of substantive evidence.
- Whether the bail bonds of the applicants should be cancelled following their discharge.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227
- Criminal (Amendment) Act, 2013 — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 109, 143, 147, 148, 149, 295, 295-A, 326, 341, 354, 354-A, 354-D, 384, 427, 452, 504, 506
- Information Technology Act — s. 66-C
- Mumbai Police Act — s. 135, 37(1), 37(3)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) — s. 10, 11(4), 12, 8
Subjects
- criminal revision
- discharge
- insufficient evidence
- minor victim
- POCSO
- IPC
- bail cancellation
- Section 227 CrPC
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38155
94.25revn etc
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
927 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2025
Salim Vajir Pathan
Altaf Babulal Shaikh
Hussain Kamal Bhai Shaikh
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. XYZ
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 95 OF 2025
Salim Vajir Pathan
Altaf Babulal Shaikh
Hussain Kamal Bhai Shaikh
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. XYZ
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2025
Salim Vajir Pathan
Altaf Babulal Shaikh
Hussain Kamal Bhai Shaikh
Shakir Kamroddin Shaikh
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. XYZ
…..
Mr Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for Applicants
Mr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent No.1/State
Ms Gayatri Dalvi, Advocate for respondent No.2 (appointed)
…..
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
94.25revn etc
(2)
P. C. :
1. Heard the learned Advocate Mr Bolkar for revision
applicants and the learned APP Mr Bhadane for respondent No.1/State
in all these matters.
2. These criminal revision applicants pray for quashing and
setting aside the impugned orders dated 30/12/2024, passed by the
learned Special Judge under POCSO Act and Additional Sessions
Judge-03, Ahmednagar, below Exhibit 22 in Special Case
No.236/2023; below Exhibit 18 in Special Case No.235/2023 and
below Exhibit 20 in Special Case No.286/2023, wherein the
applications preferred by these applicants under Section 227 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, for seeking their discharge from the said
cases, came to be rejected.
3. This Court had already issued notice to the
respondent/informant vide its order dated 19/03/2025. Respondent
No.2 is served and learned Advocate Mr Nitin S. Salunke appeared on
15/10/2025 and stated that he is having instructions to appear for
respondent No.2 and is intended to file Vakalatnama in all these
matters. Thereafter, these matters listed before this Court on various
occasions. However, Advocate Mr Salunke has never filed any
vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 /informant.
94.25revn etc
(3)
4. Today also, despite service to respondent No.2, nobody
appears on behalf of respondent No.2. Hence, in order to represent
respondent No.2, learned Advocate Ms Gayatri Dalvi is hereby
appointed. Ms Dalvi was given time to prepare these matters and she
has prepared them within a short span of time.
5. Mr Bolkar, learned Advocate for applicants in all these
matters submits that there are various counter FIRs filed by the
accused persons as well as victim on both the sides. Main dispute
between the parties pertains to damaging of the gate of the Mosque
situated at Umbare, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. Thereafter, FIR
bearing FIR No.817/2023 dated 27/07/2023 was initially filed by one
Salim Aziz Pathan against 25 persons for offence punishable under
Sections 295, 295-A, 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506 of Indian
Penal Code and under Section 7 of Criminal (Amendment) Act, 2013
as well as under Section 37(1), (3) and 135 of the Mumbai Police Act.
Said Salim Aziz Pathan is a co-accused in an offence against family
members of victim, wherein it is alleged that the accused persons
molested victim. Another FIR lodged by the victim girl bearing FIR
No.818/2023, dated 27/07/2029 for offence punishable under Sections
354, 354-A, 354-D, 384, 452 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code; under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Children from
94.25revn etc
(4)
Sexual Offences Act and under Section 66-C of the Information
Technology Act. On the same day, some persons abused and assaulted
one Awaiz Nisar Shaikh on account that he used to tease the girls.
Therefore, on the same day, Awaiz Shaikh filed FIR No.819/2023 for
offence punishable under Sections 326, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code against family member of victim, alleging that, they
have beaten him. Again FIR No.822/2023 dated 28/07/2023 was
registered against applicants and others for the offence punishable
under Section 354, 354-A, 354-D, 384, 452, 506 read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code; under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of
Children from Sexual Offences Act and under Section 66-C of the
Information Technology Act. Again on 29/07/2023, FIR No.823/2023
was registered against the applicants and others for offence punishable
under Sections 354, 354-D, 109, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code; under Section 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Children from
Sexual Offences Act.
6. Since allegations in all the FIRs are common, all these
criminal revision applications are being disposed of by this common
order.
94.25revn etc
(5)
7. For the purpose of discussion, facts and events in
Criminal Revision Application No.94/2025 are being considered.
Criminal Revision No.94/2025 is concerned with C.R.No.823/2023.
Mr Bolkar, learned Advocate for applicants, submits that following a
scuffle between both the parties, the family of victim, by taking shelter
of minor girl, falsely implicated these applicants in this crime. He then
submits that as there is no incriminating material against these accused
person, no offence can be said to be made out against them. He
submits that offence registered against accused persons is under
Section 354, 354-D, 341, 109, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 8, 11(4) and 12 of Prevention of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, however, there is no evidence to
show that the applicants have any connection with this crime. He
submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case
and they have at all no concern. According to him, applicants are also
not involved in molestation and by no stretch of imagination, offence
under Section8, 11(4) and 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual
Offences Act can be attracted to them. He further submits that, on the
basis of false allegations, applicants have been implicated in this
crime. He then submits that present applicants have no concern with
the main accused Awaiz Shaikh. He has taken me through the contents
94.25revn etc
(6)
of FIR as well as statement of witnesses. Only statement is appearing
against applicants is that they are about to provide financial assistance
to the family members of the victim in performing her marriage with
main accused Awaiz Shaikh. Apart from this statement, there is no
other incriminating material against the applicants. The investigation
officer, after completing investigation has filed charge-sheet against
main accused and these applicants. Charges are yet to be framed by
the learned Sessions Judge. He further submits that, if the applicants
are permitted to be prosecuted, they would suffer agony of the trial.
He, therefore, submits that for such insufficient incriminating material,
which is appearing in charge-sheet, the applicants may not be made to
suffer with the trial, and therefore, he prays for discharge of these
applicants/accused persons from the sessions trial.
8. Per contra, learned APP Mr Bhadane for respondent
No.1/State strongly opposed the instant application. According to him,
nature of crime is heinous and there are counter cases that may disturb
the peaceful atmosphere of the society. According to him, applicants
alleged to have committed a serious crime, thereby hurting victims
who are minor aged between 13 and 16 years. He then submits that,
applicants having involved in a serous crime, they are liable to face
prosecution trial before the Sessions Court. He further submits that, at
94.25revn etc
(7)
this stage, this Court is not required to go deep into the matter, as it is
only necessary to consider that, strong suspicion exists based on the
material on record to justify framing charges against the accused
persons. Therefore, he supports the impugned judgment and order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, thereby rejecting discharge
applications of applicants/accused. He further submits that there are
allegations that the accused persons attempted to brainwash the victim,
compelling her to convert into another religion. Conduct of another
accused is telling the victim to elope with main accused, itself shows
that they were intending to commit serious crime against society.
Hence, he submits that the instant application, being devoid of merits,
may be dismissed.
9. Ms Dalvi, learned Advocate appointed for respondent
No.2/informant, having prepared the matter within the short time-
frame granted to her, submits that the offence is serious against the
minor victim. She further submits that applicants may not be shown
any leniency and stringent action against them is required to be taken.
She further submits that the charge-sheet shows sufficient
incriminating material against accused persons, and therefore, they are
required to be prosecuted before the Sessions Court. She, therefore,
prays for rejection of the instant revision applications.
94.25revn etc
(8)
10. After considering the submissions advanced by the
learned Advocates for the respective sides, with their help, I have gone
through the charge-sheet. In the complete charge-sheet, except the
statement that the applicants were about to provide financial assistance
to main accused Awaiz, in order to facilitate to marry with the victim,
there is no any other incriminating material against the accused
persons. It is to be noted here that the accused persons are being
prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 341,
109, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 8, 11(4) and 12 of Prevention of Children from Sexual
Offences Act. In order to attract prosecution against the accused,
there is requirement of serious incriminating material against them.
The complete charge-sheet nowhere discloses any other incriminating
material apart from what is stated therein.
11. In that view of the matter, role of the present applicants is
not clearly established as regards the offence registered against them.
Hence, in my considered opinion, these applicants may not be
permitted to suffer agony of the trial, that too, under the serious
offence. Thus, applicants have made out case. Hence, I pass the
following order :-
94.25revn etc
(9)
ORDER
(I) All these criminal revision applications are allowed.
(II) The impugned orders dated 30/12/2024 in all these criminal
revision applications, passed by the learned Special Judge under
POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge-03, Ahmednagar, below
Exhibit 22 in Special Case No.236/2023; below Exhibit 18 in Special
Case No.235/2023 and below Exhibit 20 in Special Case No.286/2023,
rejecting the discharge applications of these applicants, are hereby
quashed and set aside. Applicants are hereby discharged from the
charges levelled against them.
(III) The bail bonds of applicants, if any, stand cancelled.
(IV) Record and Proceedings (R&P), if any, be sent back to the
concerned Sessions Court forthwith.
12. Learned Advocate Ms Dalvi for respondent No.2/
informant is appointed by this Court. Fees of learned Advocate Ms
Dalvi to be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Sub-
Committee, Aurangabad, as per Rules.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk
Checking your session…