Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

RABIYA IMRAN SHIRGAONKAR @ RABIYA NOMAN BHAMLAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The order granting anticipatory bail dated 23 March 2026 is quashed and set aside, and the bail application is restored to the Sessions Court for fresh disposal.

Summary

The petitioner Rabiya Imran Shirgaonkar challenged the order dated 23 March 2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Borivali, which granted anticipatory bail to six respondents in connection with CR No.6 of 2026. The petitioner argued that the order was perverse and failed to consider several relevant aspects, citing paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order. The respondents contended that the anticipatory bail was appropriate and sought to keep the protection in force until the final disposal of the bail application. The High Court, by consent of the parties, found merit in the petitioner's contentions and quashed the anticipatory bail order, restoring the bail application to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration. The court directed the Sessions Judge to pass a fresh order by 5 December 2026 and prohibited any coercive steps against the respondents pending the fresh disposal.

Issues considered

  • Whether the anticipatory bail order dated 23 March 2026 was legally valid and complied with the requirements of law.
  • Whether the order failed to consider material aspects and therefore should be set aside.

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • writ petition
  • quash order
  • criminal procedure
  • high court
  • restoration of case
  • bail application

Judgment

                                                         931.WP-3400.26.DOC




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO.3400 OF 2026

Rabiya Imran Shirgaonkar
@ Rabiya Noman Bhamla                         … Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.               …. Respondents
                        ______________________

Mr. Mubin Solkar a/w Mr. Tahir Hussain, Mr. Anas K. Shaikh, Mrs.
Mehrosh Solkar, Mr. Zahid Burud, Ms.Tahera Qureshi and Mr.M.
Undre i/by Mr. Atiya Shaikh, for the Petitioner.
Ms. S. M. Yadav,APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Sunny Waskar (through VC) i/by Mr. Dilip Gupta a/w Mr.
Avinash S. Kori, for Respondent Nos.2 to 6.
                         ______________________

                              CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                              DATED : 7 OCTOBER 2026
P. C. :-

1.         Heard Mr. Solkar, learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, Ms. Yadav, learned APP appearing for the Respondent

No.1-State and Mr. Waskar, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent Nos.2 to 6.


2.         By this writ petition, challenge is to the legality and validity

of the order dated 23 March 2026 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai in ABA No.84

of 2026.




                                     Page 1
PPN
                                                      931.WP-3400.26.DOC




3.    By   the    impugned   order,     the   said   Anticipatory   Bail

Application has been allowed and Respondent Nos.2 to 6 have

been granted Anticipatory Bail in connection with C.R. NO.6 of

2026 registered with Aarey Police Station, Mumbai.



4.    It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner that the impugned order is totally perverse and various

aspects are not at all taken into consideration. To support the said

contentions, reliance is placed on paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the

impugned order.



5.         On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

Respondent Nos.2 to 6 submits that this is a case for grant of

Anticipatory Bail. However, learned counsel, on instructions, states

that as it is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner that various aspects are not taken into consideration, the

impugned order dated 23 March 2026 be quashed and set aside

and matter be again remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge

for fresh disposal.   However, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent Nos.2 to 6 states that contentions of the parties be

kept open and the protection granted by said order dated 23




                               Page 2
PPN
                                                      931.WP-3400.26.DOC




March 2026 be continued, till disposal of the said ABA No.84 of

2026.



6.       Accordingly, by consent of the Petitioner and Respondent

Nos.2 to 6 and as there is substance in the contention raised that

various aspects are not taken into consideration while passing the

impugned order dated 23 March 2026, the said order dated 23

March 2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai in ABA No.84 of 2026 is

quashed and set aside and said ABA No.84 of 2026 is restored to

the file of the learned Sessions Court at Dindoshi.



7.      Learned Additional Sessions Judge is requested to pass fresh

order after considering the rival submissions. Learned Additional

Sessions Judge is also requested to dispose of the said ABA No.84

of 2026 on or before 5 December 2026.



8.      It is clarified that the contentions to be raised by all parties

are expressly kept open.




                                  Page 3
PPN
                                                931.WP-3400.26.DOC




9.    Till disposal of the said ABA No.84 of 2026, no coercive

steps be taken against Respondent Nos.2 to 6.



                                        [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                              Page 4
PPN


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.