Allowed¶27

Nahid Asif Surve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bail – Regular bail – Prior cancellation for non-appearance at trial

Bombay HC23 Apr 2026BA/348/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC Kolhapur Circuit Bench; Criminal Bail Application No. 348 of 2026; Nahid Asif Surve v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; decided 06-05-2026 by Sachin S. Deshmukh, J.; regular bail sought after bail cancelled for missing trial date; warrant-cancellation application rejected by trial Court on 24.11.2025; held cancellation of bail is drastic measure needing exceptional circumstances and substantive material; bail granted subject to trial-Court conditions; offences under IPC Ss. 376(A)(B), 506 and POCSO Ss. 4, 5(m), 6, 8; C.R. No. 169/2018, Chiplun Police Station, Ratnagiri.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the applicant, subject to conditions to be determined by the trial Court as it may deem fit. ¶27

Nahid Asif Surve vs the State of Maharashtra… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted to the applicant, subject to conditions to be determined by the trial Court as it may deem fit.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in respect of C.R. No. 169 of 2018 (Chiplun Police Station) notwithstanding that his earlier bail was cancelled. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Discretion was exercised in favour of the applicant and regular bail granted, subject to conditions to be determined by the trial Court as it may deem fit; the application stands allowed and disposed of.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Cancellation of bail is a drastic measure and must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances on the basis of substantive material (sentence begun in para 21 concludes in para 25).

¶21

Key takeaways

On the facts, cancellation of bail on account of failure to attend a trial date or the absence of the lawyer was not warranted, as the applicant had approached the trial Court diligently for cancellation of the warrant and had submitted to cooperate with the trial.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail — Prior cancellation for non-appearance at trial — Applicant, arraigned under IPC Ss. 376(A)(B) & 506 and POCSO Ss. 4, 5(m), 6 & 8 (C.R. No. 169/2018, Chiplun Police Station), had been enlarged on bail in 2019; allegedly owing to change of counsel he missed trial dates, a warrant of arrest issued, he was arrested, and his bail was cancelled; his application for cancellation of the warrant was rejected by the trial Court on 24.11.2025. Held: cancellation of bail is a drastic measure, to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances on the basis of substantive material; where the accused had diligently approached the trial Court for cancellation of the warrant and offered to cooperate with the trial, cancellation on account of mere failure to attend a date or absence of counsel was not warranted. Application allowed; bail granted subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial Court. (Sachin S. Deshmukh, J.)

¶1

912-BA-348-2026 (CR).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 348 OF 2026

¶4

Nahid Asif Surve VERSUS

¶5

The State of Maharashtra And Ors.

¶6

Ms. Bhagyashri R. Mangale a/w Mr. Ketan Patil, Advocate for Applicant.

¶7

Ms. Tanvi Tapkire, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.

¶8

Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, APP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.

¶9

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 6^th MAY, 2026

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R. No. 169 of 2018 dated 15.08.2018 registered with Chiplun Police Station, District Ratnagiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (A)(B) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5(m), 6 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant

¶13

has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant was initially granted bail in the year 2019. However, due to change in counsel,

¶14

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date: 2026.05.07 18:44:27 +0530

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

Sajakali Jamadar

¶17

912-BA-348-2026 (CR).doc

¶18

the applicant could not attend the trial. Consequently the warrant of arrest came to be issued and the applicant was arrested. Therefore, the applicant presented an application for cancellation of warrant, which came to be rejected by the order dated 24.11.2025. Hence, the applicant is before this Court.

¶19

Learned APP and learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 have opposed the application submitting that the applicant purposely protracted the trial and has attempted to threaten the witnesses. As such, expressed the apprehension that there is possibility that the applicant may again threaten the witnesses or flee away, if released on bail. Hence, prayed to reject the application.

¶20

Having heard the submissions from the respective sides and upon perusal of the record including the order rendered by the Court below indicates that admittedly the applicant was enlarged on bail. However, as contended by the learned counsel, the applicant has failed to appear before the Court on the given date, the bail granted to the applicant came to be cancelled.

¶21

It is a settled position of law that cancellation of bail is a drastic measure and must be exercised only in exceptional

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

Sajakali Jamadar

¶24

912-BA-348-2026 (CR).doc

¶25

circumstances on the basis of substantive material. In the instant case, the applicant had approached the trial Court diligently for the cancellation of warrant and had submitted to co-operate with the trial. As such, cancellation of bail on account of failure to attend the date before the trial Court or that of the absence of the lawyer was not warranted.

¶26

Resultantly, I am persuaded to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. However, by imposing conditions to be determined by the trial Court, as it may deem fit.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the application stands allowed and is

¶28

accordingly disposed of.

¶29

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

Sajakali Jamadar

Nahid Asif Surve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nahid Asif Surve v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kedar Nitin Gumate vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Gopinath Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Santosh Alias Sanjay Durga Limbankar vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Aadam Goaus Pathan vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anirudha Alias Prem Dattaguru Madav vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sajiad Rajak Sayyad vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.