Alhida Shah @ Heena Iqbal Chudesara v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Jan 2026BA/3763/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alhida Shah @ Heena Iqbal Chudesara; Heena Iqbal Chudesara; Parvej Dastagir Sheikh; State of Maharashtra; CR No. 109 of 2022; Arnala Police Station; Mira Bhaindar; Vasai-Virar; IPC Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 34; MPID Act Sections 3 and 4; bail on ground of parity with Supreme Court order dated 9th December, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 5330 of 2025; no criminal antecedents; PR Bond Rs.30,000/- with one surety; Justice R. M. Joshi; Bombay High Court Criminal Bail Application No. 3763 of 2025; decision dated 1st April, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Alhida Shah @ Heena Iqbal Chudesara to be released on bail in CR No. 109 of 2022 on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to attending all dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless exempted. ¶ORDER i

Alhida Shah @ Heena Iqbal Chudesara vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶ORDER i

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant — alleged to have played exactly the same role as co-accused Parvej Dastagir Sheikh, who has been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court — is entitled to bail on the ground of parity in CR No.109 of 2022 (Sections 420, 406, 465, 467 read with Section 34 IPC; Sections 3 and 4 MPID Act), given that she has no criminal antecedents.

¶3

Court's answer

Since it is undisputed that the Applicant is alleged to have the same role as co-accused Parvej (enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court) and she has no criminal antecedents, this Court found no reason not to apply parity and accordingly allowed the Bail Application.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

Operative terms of release: in connection with CR No. 109 of 2022 the Applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a PR Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, and shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless exempted.

¶ORDER ii

Key takeaways

The observations made herein are declared prima facie and confined to this Application; the learned Trial Judge is to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by these observations.obiter¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — parity. Alhida Shah @ Heena Iqbal Chudesara sought enlargement on bail in CR No.109 of 2022 (Arnala Police Station, District Mira Bhaindar, Vasai-Virar) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act. Her alleged role was exactly the same as that of co-accused Parvej Dastagir Sheikh, whom the Hon'ble Supreme Court had enlarged on bail by order dated 9th December, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 5330 of 2025. The learned APP, though opposing, could point to no differentiation in role and stated that no crime besides this one is registered against the Applicant, who also has no criminal antecedents. Finding no reason not to apply parity, the Court allowed the application: release on PR Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount, with attendance at all Trial Court hearing dates unless exempted; the Court expressly confined its observations as prima facie, leaving merits to the Trial Judge.

¶1

18_BA_3763_2025.DOC

¶2

Prasad

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3763 OF 2025

¶5

Alhida Shah @ Heena Iqbal Chudesara …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶6

Mr. Milan Desai a/w Rohan Naidu, S.R. Sharma, Chandralok Jha and Pooja Pandey, for the Applicant. Ms. Shilpa K. Gajre-Dhumal , APP for the Respondent - State. PSI – S.K. Damre, Arnala Police Station, present.

¶7

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 1^st APRIL, 2026.

¶8

PC:-

¶9

The Applicant seeks her enlargement on bail in connection with CR No.109 of 2022, registered with Arnala Police Station, District Mira Bhaindar, Vasai-Virar, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).

¶10

At the outset, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the co-accused - Parvej Dastagir Sheikh, against whom exactly same role has been attributed has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 9^th December, 2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5330 of 2025. He placed reliance on

¶11

Page 1 of 3 1^st April, 2026.

¶12

18_BA_3763_2025.DOC

¶13

observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the said order. He therefore seeks bail on parity.

¶14

Learned APP though opposes application, she was unable to point out any differentiation in the role alleged against the present Applicant as compared to the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court. She, on instructions, makes a statement that there is one crime registered against coaccused - Parvej, however no crime is registered against the present Applicant.

¶15

Once it is not in dispute that the Applicant is alleged to have same role as compared to the role attributed to the coaccused - Parvej who is enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court and that she has no criminal antecedents, this Court finds no reason not to apply parity. Hence, the Application stands allowed.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

i) The Bail Application stands allowed.

¶18

ii) In connection with CR No. 109 of 2022 registered with Arnala Police Station, Mira – Bhaindar, Vasai – Virar, the Applicant be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶19

iii) The Applicant shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court, unless exempted.

¶20

Page 2 of 3 1^st April, 2026.

¶21

18_BA_3763_2025.DOC

¶22

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

1^st April, 2026.

Alhida Shah @ Heena Iqbal Chudesara v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alhida Shah @ Heena Iqbal Chudesara v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammed Amir Abid Ali vs State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Harishchandra Satam and Anr. vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Ateev Varjlal Gala vs State of Maharashtra

Smt. Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Mr. Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.

Smt. Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Mr. Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.

Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.