Dismissed¶19

Khurshid Aslam Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026IA/566/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of anticipatory bail; application held to be in the nature of review and not entertainable; earlier s.438 Cr.P.C. protection based on APP's statement that Respondent No.2 received no money from first informant; Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher relied on by counsel only (treatment: referred); Bombay High Court; Khurshid Aslam Shaikh; IA rejected.

What did the court decide?

The present Interim Application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail appears to be in the nature of review and therefore cannot be entertained; accordingly, the Interim Application is rejected. ¶19

Khurshid Aslam Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1 920-IA 566-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.566 OF 2024 IN

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.268 OF 2024

¶5

Khurshid Aslam Shaikh … Applicant V/s. The State & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. A. S. Khan, R. Shaikh for the Applicant. Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Alfiya Shaikh i/by Vishal Kolekar for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 16TH JANUARY 2026

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This is an Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, granted by this Court vide order dated 31^st January 2024 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.268 of 2024 to Respondent No.2 in the present application.

¶10

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said order reads thus:

¶11

“5. Learned APP, on instructions, submitted that the investigation has revealed that the applicant has not received any money from the first informant and his claim about being a victim is also found to be true after the investigation.

¶12

I have considered these submissions. In view of the stand taken by the learned APP, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is also one of the victims will have to be accepted. There is nothing to show that the applicant himself has received any part of the amount paid by the first informant. There are agreements executed by the informant and his family members with Bharat Patel.

1 of 2

Mugdha

2 920-IA 566-24.doc

Thus, it appears that the applicant himself had believed the representation made by Bharat Patel and had only suggested that house scheme to the informant. Beyond that, there does not appear to be any active involvement of the present applicant. In this view of the matter, custodial interrogation would be unfair to him. He can be protected U/s.438 of the Cr.p.c.”

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the statement made by the Learned APP in Paragraph 5 on the basis of which this Court has granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No.2 is factually incorrect and there is enough incriminating material against Respondent No.2. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the anticipatory bail can be cancelled by the same court. In support of the said submissions, Learned Counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manik Madhukar Sarve & Ors. vs. Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors.¹

¶18

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that this Court after examining the material on record has observed that there does not appear to be any active involvement of the Respondent No.2 in the crime in question. It is submitted that thus the present application may not be entertained.

¶19

The present application appears to be in the nature of review and therefore, the same cannot be entertained. Hence, the present Interim Application is rejected.

¶20

1 Criminal Appeal No.3573 of 2024 dated 28^th August 2024.

¶21

2 of 2

¶22

Mugdha

Khurshid Aslam Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khurshid Aslam Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Hemant Raghunath Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra

Kulsum W/O Faiyaz Khan and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Pooja Dilip Seth vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Gabrial Dcosta vs State of Maharashtra

Sandip Krishna Kambale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parshuram Yallappa Kakshagiri vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.