Allowed

Mohammad Shoaib Abdul Gaffar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Officer Old City, Akola and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Aug 2026ABA/651/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case alleging harassment and illegal triple talaq under BNS and the Muslim Women Act. The High Court granted pre-arrest protection, confirming a prior interim order, noting that merely invoking the Muslim Women Act is not sufficient to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application is allowed and disposed of. The previous interim order dated 23.07.2026 is confirmed on the same terms.

Mohammad Shoaib Abdul Gaffar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1 18.aba.651.2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.651 OF 2026

¶4

Mohammad Shoaib Abdul Gaffar

¶5

..vs..

¶6

State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶7

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri Syed Salman Ali, Advocate for the applicant. Ms S.S. Dhote, APP for the non-applicant/State.

¶11

CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : 17.08.2026.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

By way of this application, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.650 of 2026 registered with Old City Police Station, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 3(5), 352, 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 r/w Section 3, 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act, 2019.

¶14

It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant has harassed the informant victim for dowry demand and refused to cohabit with her as she failed to fulfill the demand.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that initially the offence under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code) was registered against the applicant. Later on, provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 were added. The

¶16

2 18.aba.651.2026

¶17

allegations are vague in nature and therefore, the custody of the applicant would not require. It is submitted that this Court has already protected the applicant vide order dated 23.07.2026 and therefore, the application is prayed to be allowed.

¶18

On the other hand learned APP vehemently opposed the application on the ground that there are serious allegations against the applicant. The applicant is the husband of the informant victim, who had harassed the victim by pronouncing oral tripple talaq, which is not permissible in the law and therefore, the application is prayed to be rejected.

¶19

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Invoking provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 in itself are not sufficient to deny the anticipatory bail to the applicant. Considering the nature of allegations and fact that this Court has already granted interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 23.07.2026, I am inclined to grant the pre-arrest protection to the applicant. Hence the following order :

¶20

(a) The application is allowed and disposed of.

¶21

(b) The order dated 23.07.2026 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions as incorporated in the said order.

¶22

¶23

3 18.aba.651.2026

¶24

(d) The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations.

¶25

(M.M. NERLIKAR, J.)

¶26

Trupti

¶27

Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/08/2026 17:35:33

Mohammad Shoaib Abdul Gaffar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Officer Old City, Akola and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Shoaib Abdul Gaffar v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Officer Old City, Akola and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases