Nafis Gulam Mohammad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nafis Gulam Mohammad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on bail in connection with CR No.961 of 2025 (Oshiwara Police Station) on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; conditions: (i) not to tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence any witness; (ii) to appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing unless prevented by sufficient cause; (iii) not to contact the victim or any other witness whatsoever.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, in custody since August, 2025 in connection with CR No.961 of 2025 (Oshiwara Police Station) for offences under Sections 64(1), 308(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67(a) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, is entitled to be released on bail. +2 more

Court's answer

The bail application is allowed: in connection with CR No.961 of 2025 the Applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the conditions that he shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence any witness, shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing unless prevented by sufficient cause, and shall not contact the victim or any other witness.

Ratio / Principle

At this stage there is absolutely no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations with regard to video and photographs of the Informant being taken at the time of the occurrence of the alleged incidents in March, 2025 and April, 2025.

Key takeaways

Prima facie, the FIR discloses delay in lodging of the report; the only contention offered for the delay is threatening of the Informant by the Applicant making use of video and photographs of her.ratio¶16
Although the mobile phone was seized in August, 2025, it had not been sent to the FSL for examination till date, which indicates the manner in which the investigation has been carried out.ratio¶16
The co-accused have already been enlarged on bail; the Applicant has no criminal history behind him and is not likely to flee from justice.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — Nafis Gulam Mohammad Shaikh (Criminal Bail Application No.734 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, R. M. Joshi, J., 18th April, 2026): Applicant in CR No.961 of 2025 (Oshiwara Police Station, dated 12th August, 2025) for offences under Sections 64(1), 308(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67(a) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000; arrested August, 2025, charge-sheet filed, trial not commenced. FIR alleges a March, 2025 incident of forcible sexual intercourse with the co-accused taking video and photographs, an April, 2025 incident following administration of a stupefying substance, and extortion of money (Informant claiming to have paid Rs.70 lakhs over time) on the strength of the videos/photographs. Granting bail, the Court prima facie noted (i) delay in lodging the FIR, the sole explanation offered being threats made using the videos/photographs; (ii) that the mobile phone seized in August, 2025 had still not been sent to the FSL, indicating the manner in which the investigation had been carried out; (iii) that at that stage there was absolutely no evidence on record substantiating the video/photograph allegations; and (iv) that the co-accused were already enlarged on bail, the Applicant had no criminal history and was not likely to flee from justice. Released on a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, with conditions against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or contacting the victim, and requiring appearance before the Trial Court on every hearing date. All observations expressly prima facie and confined to the application, the learned Trial Judge to decide the case uninfluenced by them.