Disposed¶21

mohammed ali ansari v. Rajshekhar Nagappa Salgare and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2026WP/265/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court criminal writ petition (W.P. No. 265 of 2026, decided 18-02-2026, Shree Chandrashekhar CJ & Gautam A. Ankhad J) filed by Mohammed Ali Ansari against Rajshekhar Nagappa Salgare and Ors. Reliefs sought: transfer of investigation of F.I.R. No. 178/2024 (Manikpur Police Station, Vasai, Palghar) to Commissioner of Police, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar or independent agency; departmental enquiry against police officers (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2); compensation of Rs 3,00,000/- with 6% p.a. interest per Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission order dated 26-06-2024. Petition withdrawn with liberty to pursue statutory remedies; disposed of as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to avail of statutory remedies as available to him in law. ¶21

mohammed ali ansari vs Rajshekhar Nagappa Salgare and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to avail of statutory remedies as available to him in law.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the investigation of F.I.R. No. 178 of 2024 (Manikpur Police Station, Vasai, Dist. Palghar) should be transferred to the Commissioner of Police, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar or another independent agency, to be carried out fairly and transparently. +2 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

After argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought, and the Court entertained, permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail of statutory remedy as available to him in law.

¶20

Key takeaways

Writ Petition No. 265 of 2026 was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to avail statutory remedies; no prayer was adjudicated on merits.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 265 of 2026 — Mohammed Ali Ansari v. Rajshekhar Nagappa Salgare and Ors.; Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ and Gautam A. Ankhad, J.; decided 18 February 2026. By prayers clauses (a)-(c), the petitioner sought (i) transfer of the investigation of F.I.R. No. 178 of 2024 registered with Manikpur Police Station, Vasai, Dist. Palghar to the Commissioner of Police, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar or any other independent agency for fair, unbiased and transparent investigation; (ii) initiation of departmental enquiry and action against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights; and (iii) payment to him of Rs 3,00,000/- compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. per the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai order dated 26th June 2024. After argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail of statutory remedy; the Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 265 of 2026 as withdrawn with that liberty. No prayer was decided on merits.

¶1

BDP

¶2

914-crwp-265-2026.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 265 OF 2026

¶5

Mohammed Ali Ansari …. Petitioner. V/s Rajshekhar Nagappa Salgare and Ors. …. Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Datta Mane with Mr. Nitesh Sahu, advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Gavand, Addl. P.P. for the respondent nos. 1 to 6.

¶7

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶8

DATE : 18^TH FEBRUARY 2026

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The petitioner has made the following prayers:-

¶11

“a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing that the investigation of the F.I.R. No.178 of 2024 registered with Manikpur Police Station, Vasai, Dist – Palghar be transferred to the Commissioner of Police, Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar or to any other appropriate independent investigation agency, with further directions to carry out investigation in fair, unbiased and transparent manner;

¶12

b. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent no. 3 to 5 to initiate the departmental enquiry against the Respondent No. 1 and 2, for abusing the power vested on them and violating petitioner’s fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India and after perusing the inquiry report, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to 5 to initiate the departmental action against the Respondent No.1 and 2 delinquent erring officers in the interest of justice;

¶13

c. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to 5 to pay the compensation to petitioner as per the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission’s order dated

¶14

¶15

BDP

¶16

914-crwp-265-2026.doc

¶17

26^th June 2024, which is Rs 3,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. till its actual realization.

¶18

d. Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (a to c) above may kindly be granted;

¶19

c. for such further and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶20

After arguing for sometime and taking us through the order dated 26^th June 2024 passed by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai, Mr. Datta Mane, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail of statutory remedy as available to him in law.

¶21

Writ Petition No.265 of 2026 is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

¶22

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶23

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶24

Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.03.05 12:16:15 +0530

¶25

mohammed ali ansari v. Rajshekhar Nagappa Salgare and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

mohammed ali ansari v. Rajshekhar Nagappa Salgare and Anr.

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

Richard Behram Mehta vs the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Inkit Dashrath Patel vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachan Amarlal Ramrakhiani and Ors. vs Dnyaneshwar Sabale and Ors.

Unique Pest Control Services vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Rhythm Lounge through Proprietor Akshaya Kumar Shetty vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sarina Esmeralda Lopez vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.