Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10286 (BOM)

MOHAMMAD MOSIN YASIN SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

BA/2278/2026 · 2026-09-21

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

P.H. JAYANI 12 BA2278.2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2278 OF 2026 Mohammad Mosin Yasin Shaikh …. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents Mr. Shivamsinh Deshmukh a/w. Adv. Dwarkesh B. Chavda for the Applicant. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State (through VC). Ms. Komal Sinha, appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr. R.G. Gujar, PSI, Malad Police Station, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. Mr. Deshmukh tendered a copy of DV proceedings filed by Respondent No.2 and a copy the whats app chats between the Applicant and Respondent No.2. It is taken on record (‘X colly’). 2. The present application seeking release of the applicant on bail in connection with Cr.No.743/2024 registered with Malad Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 504, 506, 323, 500, 377 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”); Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO”) and, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the Report dated 02.09.2024 filed by Respondent No.2 (“the victim”). 3. The prosecution case is that, at the relevant time, the victim was a divorcee and having a son aged 7 years. In December, 2018 the applicant and the victim came in contact with each other. Page 1 of 4 P.H. JAYANI 12 BA2278.2026.DOC Gradually, they became friends and it led to establishing a love relationship between them. Meanwhile, the applicant went to Saudi Arabia for work. In the year 2022 he returned. Thereafter, the two got married with each-other on 11.05.2023. After the marriage, the couple used to reside at Malad (W) along with parents of the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and also committed unnatural sex with her. It is alleged that the applicant used to show an obscene video to the son of the victim and tell him to involve with him in similar act. Between August 2023 to November 2023, the applicant alongwith his parents, subjected the victim to cruelty. They defamed her alleging that she has no fidelity. It is alleged that in October, 2023 at about 7:30 p.m., in his house the applicant committed penetrative sexual assault on the child. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered and the applicant was arrested. On completion of the investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet. The trial Court refused to release the applicant on bail. Hence, this Application. 4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that after dissolution of the 1st marriage, the victim performed the 2nd marriage. However, she suppressed that fact and, without getting that marriage dissolved, she married with the applicant. Therefore, there used to be disputes between them and, the victim left his company. Thereafter, the victim filed the DV proceedings and she then lodged this Report. There is one year delay in filing the Report which is not explained. Therefore, the narration in the FIR is false and the Applicant is innocent. 5. In reply, Mr. Khan, the learned APP and Ms. Sinha, the learned Counsel for the victim submitted that although there is P.H. JAYANI 12 BA2278.2026.DOC delay in filing the FIR, the entire offence is well narrated in the Report, statement of the victim and his son. Therefore, there is a prima facie case of the applicant having committed this offence and he is not entitled for bail. 6. I have considered these submissions. It is a fact that the alleged cruelty and the sexual assault was committed by the applicant between August 2023 to December 2023. Thereafter, the victim alongwith her son went to her mothers place. She then filed the DV proceedings on 24.06.2024. Therein, she alleged the said offence. Yet, soon thereafter, she did not file the report. Finally, the Report was filed on 02.09.2024, i.e., almost 10 months after the incident. Therefore, it appears that the matrimonial dispute between the parties led to filing of the DV proceedings and the present Report. The Report clearly state that, twice the victim had conceived child from the applicant. Consequently, it is difficult to say that there is a prima facie case against the applicant of having committed the alleged offence. The applicant is behind bars for last one year. The trial will take its own time to conclude. The applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution evidence. 7. In the wake of above, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, following Order :- (i) The applicant - Mohammad Mosin Yasin Shaikh be released on bail in Cr.No.743/2024 registered with Malad Police Station, Mumbai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Page 3 of 4 P.H. JAYANI 12 BA2278.2026.DOC (ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Malad Police Station, Mumbai once in three months between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. (iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him. (v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in case there is any change. (vi) The applicant shall not contact the victim and shall not reside/enter in the vicinity where the victim is residing. (vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.09.23 14:17:13 +0530