Yusuf Anwar Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Yusuf Anwar Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; Criminal Bail Application No. 8203/2025 relegated back to the Special Court for a decision afresh on merit, with directions to record findings on the prima facie case vis-a-vis the Atrocities Act and to decide the application within four weeks; interim relief to remain in force for six weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned rejection of the bail application by the Special Court solely on the ground that it had no jurisdiction — without dealing with the merits or recording prima facie findings on applicability of the Atrocities Act — was sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The Learned Special Court rejected the bail application without dealing with the merits and without recording any findings on whether a prima facie case is made out for applicability of the Atrocities Act, resting the rejection solely on the ground that it had no jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

Taking a view different from the Andhra Pradesh High Court (whose judgment in Smt. Vidadala Rajani was relied on below), and consistently with its order dated 9 February 2026 in Omraje A. Kalbhor vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Cri. Appeal (Stamp) No. 21477 of 2025), this Court holds that mere recording of prima facie findings with regard to non-applicability of the Atrocities Act would not lead to cessation of jurisdiction by the Special Court.

Key takeaways

Because the Special Court did not deal with the merits, this Court refrains from recording any finding in the appeal for the first time, as doing so would deny the aggrieved party an opportunity of appeal under Section 14A.ratio¶18
Clarification: the impugned order has neither been set aside on merit nor has this Court expressed any opinion or view on the merits of the case.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2026 (R. M. Joshi, J.; 13 March 2026) — Yusuf Anwar Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.: The Special Court, deciding Criminal Bail Application No. 8203/2025, relied on Smt. Vidadala Rajani v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Division Bench, AP HC; 2025 SCC Online AP 3404) and rejected the application solely on the ground that it had no jurisdiction, without dealing with the merits or recording findings on whether a prima facie case existed for applicability of the Atrocities Act. Observing that this Court has taken a different view than the Andhra Pradesh High Court — vide its order dated 9 February 2026 in Omraje A. Kalbhor v. State of Maharashtra (Cri. Appeal (Stamp) No. 21477 of 2025), holding that mere recording of prima facie findings on non-applicability of the Atrocities Act does not bring about cessation of the Special Court's jurisdiction — and declining to record merits findings for the first time in appeal lest the aggrieved party be denied the opportunity of appeal under Section 14A, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The bail application was relegated to the Special Court for a fresh decision, with directions to record prima facie findings on applicability of the Atrocities Act and to decide within four weeks; interim relief was continued for six weeks. It was clarified that the impugned order was not set aside on merits and no view on merits was expressed.

9-CRAPEAL-11-2026.ODT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2026

Yusuf Anwar Shaikh Versus State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

…Appellant

…Respondents

Mr. Chinmay Godse, for the Appellant.

Mr. Rishikesh M. Pethe, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Kanchan Pawar, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. Pratik S. Patil, API, Bibwewadi Police Station, Pune City, is present.

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATED: 13^th MARCH, 2026

PC:-

During the course of the hearing, it is found that the Learned Special Court without dealing with the merits of the case and without recording any findings so as to whether any prima facie case is made out for applicability of provisions of the Atrocities Act, rejected the application holding that the Special Court has no jurisdiction. In this regard, the reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Vidadala Rajani w/o. Kumara Swamy vs.

Page 1 of 3 13^th March, 2026

9-CRAPEAL-11-2026.ODT

State of Andhra Pradesh¹ .

This Court has already taken a different view than the one taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It is held by this Court by order dated 9^th February 2026, passed in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No. 21477 of 2025, Omraje A. Kalbhor vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., that mere recording of prima facie findings with regard to non applicability of the Atrocities Act, would not lead to the cessation of jurisdiction by the Special Court.

Since the Special Court has not dealt with the merit of the case, this Court refrains itself from recording any finding in this appeal for the first time. By doing so, there would be denial of an opportunity of appeal under Section 14A to the aggrieved party.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the liberty of the Appellant is protected by interim order dated 13^th January 2026 and the same is extended till Special Court hears and decides the application afresh.

As a result of above discussion, following order is passed:-

ORDER

(i) The Appeal stands allowed.

1 2025 SCC Online AP 3404

Page 2 of 3 13^th March, 2026

9-CRAPEAL-11-2026.ODT

(ii) In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside.

(iii) The Criminal Bail Application No. 8203/2025 is relegated back to Special Court for a decision afresh on merit.

(iv) The Special Court is directed to record findings with regard to prima facie case being made out or not attracting the provisions of the Atrocities Act and then to decide the Application.

(v) It is clarified that the order impugned has neither been set aside on merit nor this Court has expressed any opinion / view with regard to the merits of the case.

(vi) The Special Court is directed to decide the Bail Application within a period of four weeks from today.

(vii) Interim relief granted by this Court remain in force for a period of six weeks from today.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

VDMokal/-

Page 3 of 3 13^th March, 2026