Bombay High Court
NAWAZ SHAIKH PRESENTLY LODGED AT CENTRAL JAIL COLVALEversusTHE STATE OF GOA THR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court quashed the cancellation of proclamation and bail, and ordered the petitioner to be released on a fresh personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety.
Summary
The petitioner, Nawaz Shaikh, challenged a Sessions Court order that cancelled his proclamation and allowed the prosecution to cancel his bail in a case (Crime No.123/2018) pending before the Sessions Court. He had been on bail since 2018, attended all hearings, but missed some sessions after being charged in a separate case (Crime No.5/2026) and obtaining pre‑arrest bail. The prosecution argued that his absence amounted to a breach of bail conditions, justifying cancellation of bail and issuance of a proclamation. The High Court examined whether the petitioner’s non‑attendance was deliberate and whether it warranted cancellation of bail. Finding that the absence was due to pursuing bail in the new case and not a willful breach, the Court quashed the cancellation order, directed the petitioner to furnish a fresh personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety, and ordered him to continue attending the original trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the Sessions Court erred in cancelling the proclamation and allowing cancellation of bail for the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner’s absence from the trial, caused by the pendency of a separate case, constitutes a breach of bail conditions.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail pending trial in the original case with fresh surety.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3, 5
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 307, 34, 341, 448, 452, 506(ii)
Subjects
- bail
- proclamation
- non‑bailable warrant
- pre‑arrest bail
- good behaviour condition
- criminal procedure
- high court
- cancellation of bail
- cancellation of proclamation
- fresh surety
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1755 WPCR-359-2026
Suzana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.359 OF 2026
Nawaz Shaikh presently lodged at
Central Jail, Colvale … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Goa, thr. Public Prosecutor
And Anr. .. Respondents.
Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Somnath B. Karpe, Additional Public Prosecutor with Ms.
Samiksha Vaigankar, Advocate for Respondents.
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED: : 28th August 2026.
ORDER:
1. The Petitioner impugns Order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the
Sessions Court in Sessions Case (Ors). No.3/2020 thereby rejecting his
application for cancellation of proclamation and allowing application for
cancellation of bail moved by prosecution. The Petitioner further seeks
directions to enlarge him on bail.
2. The Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.123/2018 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 448, 452, 506(ii) read
with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 5 of
the Arms Act. The Petitioner was released on bail by Order dated
Page 1 of 6
th
28 August 2026
WPCR-359-2026
16.11.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed, he is
enlarged on bail and presently Sessions Case (Ors) No.3/2020 is
pending before the Sessions Court at South Goa at Margao. The
Petitioner continuously attended Court proceedings and abided terms
and conditions of bail. Even trial in Sessions Case No.3/2020 is
commenced and as many as 7 prosecution witnesses have been
examined.
3. On 06.01.2026, Petitioner has shown accused in Crime No.5/2026
registered with Vasco Police Station for offences punishable under
Sections 109, 118(1) and (2), 303(2) read with 3(5) BNS, 2023. The
Petitioner moved application for pre-arrest bail before the Sessions
Court. While bail application was pending, the Petitioner could not
attend the hearing in Sessions Case No.3/2020. Eventually, on
11.02.2026, non-bailable warrant came to be issued against him. On
24.04.2026, since non-bailable warrant could not be executed against
Petitioner, proclamation came to be issued.
4. On 30.05.2026, Petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class at Vasco and submitted personal bond in Crime No.5/2026.
Accordingly, he has been released on bail. Thereafter, Petitioner
appeared in Sessions Case No.3/2020 and filed application for
Page 2 of 6
th
28 August 2026
WPCR-359-2026
cancellation of proclamation. As per directions of the Sessions Court,
he had submitted a fresh personal bond of Rs.20,000/- pending
application for cancellation of proclamation. On 03.07.2026,
prosecution filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to
Petitioner. The Petitioner personally remained present before the
Sessions Court during hearing of the aforesaid applications. Ultimately,
on 12.08.2026, Learned Sessions Judge rejected Petitioner's application
for cancellation of proclamation, whereas, allowed prosecution's
application for cancellation of bail and took Petitioner into custody.
Hence, this Petition.
5. Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, Learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner would submit that since 2018, Petitioner has continuously
attended proceedings in Sessions Case. He abided by conditions of bail
imposed upon him while being released in Crime No.123/2018.
Unfortunately, when Petitioner was implicated in Crime No.5/2026 and
required to pursue his remedies for pre-arrest bail, during the period
from 06.01.2026 till 30.05.2026 till his release on bail, he could not
attend proceedings in Sessions case. Thereafter, he suo motu appeared
in Sessions Case No.3/2020. Even in subsequent Crime No.5/2026, he
has been enlarged on bail. Hence, Petitioner need not be detained behind
bars and can be released by putting appropriate conditions.
Page 3 of 6
th
28 August 2026
WPCR-359-2026
6. Per contra, Mr. Somnath B. Karpe, Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, supports the impugned Order and submits that previously,
two offences have been registered against the Applicant. While the trial
in Sessions Case No.3/2020 had reached advanced stage, Petitioner
absconded. Non-bailable warrant issued against him could not be
served. Even his surety failed to bring him before the Court.
Eventually, proclamation was issued.
7. Having considered submissions advanced by Learned Advocates
appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that previously
Crime No.123/2018 has been registered against the Petitioner which is
under trial in Sessions Case No.3/2020 before the Sessions Court.
Indisputably, Petitioner was released on bail in said crime subject to
condition of good behaviour. The Petitioner regularly attended hearing
in Sessions Case No.3/2020 without default. As many as 7 witnesses
have been examined in the trial. It is only after registration of Crime
No.5/2026, wherein Petitioner is shown as accused No.5, he failed to
attend hearings before Sessions Court while pursuing his remedy for
grant of pre-arrest bail. It is true that because of the Petitioner's
absence in Sessions Case No.3/2020, non-bailable warrant was issued
which could not be executed against him. Eventually, proclamation was
required to be issued.
Page 4 of 6
th
28 August 2026
WPCR-359-2026
8. The record indicates that on 30.05.2026, the Petitioner was
released on bail in Crime No.5/2026 and thereafter, he appeared before
Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.3/2020 and filed application for
cancellation of proclamation. At the same time, prosecution filed
application for cancellation of bail and same has been allowed. The
prime reason for cancellation of bail is the absence of Petitioner in
midst of trial in Sessions Case No.3/2020 and non-service of non-
bailable warrant against him. The impugned Order further records that
the Petitioner has failed to abide the conditions of bail whereby he was
required to maintain good behaviour.
9. This Court finds that, due to the registration of Crime No.5/2026
dated 06.01.2026, Petitioner was required to move the application for
pre-arrest bail which was dismissed. Thereafter, on 30.05.2026, he
surrendered before the Magistrate and obtained bail. The absence of
Petitioner cannot be said to be deliberate avoidance of attendance in
Sessions Case No.3/2020. It is difficult to hold that only because Crime
No.5/2026 is registered against him, he can be blamed of breach of
condition regarding good behaviour. Perusal of FIR in Crime
No.5/2026 suggest that Petitioner was not assailant of informant
therein. He was alleged to be driver of vehicle wherein accused persons
undertook journey. In the aforesaid backdrop, interest of justice would
be served if Petitioner is directed to furnish fresh surety. Hence, Writ
Page 5 of 6
th
28 August 2026
WPCR-359-2026
Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), subject to condition
that the Petitioner furnish fresh personal bond with one surety for
Rs.50,000/- and continue to attend proceedings in Sessions Case
No.3/2020 without default till conclusion of trial. Prayer clause (a)
reads thus:
“a) Grant a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
calling for the records in Sessions Case (Ors.) No.3/2020
pending before the Sessions Court South Goa at Margao and
after perusing the same, to quash the said Order dated
12.08.2025 passed by the Ld. District Court by which for
cancellation Application of proclamation filed by the Petitioner
has been dismissed and the Application for cancellation of bail
filed by the Prosecution has been allowed and consequently
enlarge the Applicant on bail.”
10. Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Page 6 of 6
th
Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
28 August 2026
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 29/08/2026 16:10:28
Checking your session…