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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.