BA.1545.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1545 OF 2026 Wasim Salim Shaikh .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w. Ms. Abhilasha Pawar i/b. Sumit Patil, Advocates for Applicant.  Mr. Waqar Pathan a/w. Creesh Jain i/b. Wesley Menezes, Advocates for Respondent No.2.  Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent No.1 – State.  API – Mr. Shrikant Sangharshi, Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune City. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Nikam, learned Advocate for Applicant, Mr. Pathan learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent No.1– State. 2. Present Applicant is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Applicant in connection with FIR being CR No.285 of 2025 registered at Sahakarnagar Police Station, Pune City for the offences punishable under Section 142, 143(2), 118(1), 115(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 1 of 6 BA.1545.2026.doc 3. Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.5 in the present crime. Victim – Respondent No.2 was 17 years old at the time of incident. Name of Applicant is disclosed two and a half months after filing of First Information Report (FIR). 4. Prosecution case is that victim was lured from her home country to work in India by her sister arraigned as Accused no.1 under the false promise of offering work in a beauty parlour. Victim traveled from Bangladesh to Pune via Kolkatta and her arrival in Pune was confined to a flat belonging to the Applicant by the other co – accused persons. Victim claims to have been assaulted by her sister and forced into prostitution by Accused Nos.1 - 4. She states that she traveled to different places in Budhwarpeth and Balajinagar and was rescued by an NGO. Case of prosecution against Applicant is that after victim arrived in Pune she met Applicant after which she was taken to a hotel in Pune which belonged to Applicant and thereafter handed over to the other accused persons. Principal case of prosecution is that the flat where victim was confined belonged to the Applicant and the other co – accused persons were working under him. 5. Mr. Nikam has taken me through the material appended in the chargesheet and argued that nexus of the Applicant qua the crime in question is prima facie not evident. 2 of 6 BA.1545.2026.doc 6. PER CONTRA, Ms. Chavan, learned Advocate of Respondent No.2 – Prosectrix would vehemently argue against grant of bail to the Applicant on the ground that in view of Applicant’s role in providing residence and protection to the other co - accused persons, he is likely to re offend himself, tamper with material evidence and also likely to influence the prosecution witnesses. He would submit that Application be rejected and trial be expedited and most importantly because the Applicant has a similar antecedent in the past he is all the more likely to re offend himself by indulging in the same crime which is detrimental to the Society at large. 7. I have considered the submissions and the record in the charge-sheet placed before the Court. It is prima facie seen that, the Victim does not name the present Applicant in the present FIR copy of which is appended at page No.75 of the Petition. Next it is seen that in the further statement recorded on 31.08.2025, once again the Applicant is not named therein at all. It is seen that Applicant’s name surfaces for the first time in the Victim’s Section 183 of BNSS statement recorded on 18.09.2025 i.e. two months after the registration of FIR where the only role attributed to Applicant is that he told Accused No.1 her elder sister to send her to a different location. Next it is seen that the Victim records her second Section 183 statement on 17.10.2025 wherein she improvises further and states that Applicant used to collect money from the other co – accused 3 of 6 BA.1545.2026.doc persons and the other co – accused persons worked with the Applicant however in this statement she has referred to the Applicant by a different name Wasim Salim Reza and not by his correct name being Wasim Salim Shaikh. 8. It is seen that Applicant is the owner of Hotel Mama Cafe located at Budhwarpeth, Pune and in March 2025 the said cafe was given to one Ramesh Sarkar for conducting the business and prosecution has failed to record his statement because the victim has alleged that when she came to Pune the Applicant had taken her to that Hotel. Most importantly Applicant is identified by the victim in her third statement recorded on 02.12.2025, copy of which is appended at page No. 251 on the basis of a photograph and prosecution has failed to conduct the Test Identification Parade. 9. In view of the aforesaid dichotomy and improvement in the Victim’s own statements over a period of 5 months and no material prima facie incriminating evidence shown from the chargesheet at this prima facie stage, Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Needless to state that Applicant’s complicity in the crime will be proven at trial. 10. In view of the above observations arrived at after perusing the FIR, statement of the Respondent No.2 and the material appended in the Chargesheet, prima facie there is no material placed on record to 4 of 6 BA.1545.2026.doc persuade me to continue the incarceration of Applicant in prison. 11. Having regard to all the above aspects, I am inclined to grant bail to the Applicant on the following conditions: (i) Applicant – Wasim Salim Shaikh is directed to be immediately released on bail from prison in connection with C.R. No. 285 of 2025; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station once every month on the third Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the first six months and thereafter as and when called; (iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so, it will entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of this order; (v) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court; 5 of 6 BA.1545.2026.doc (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicant shall not make any attempts to contact the First Informant / victim or any witnesses by any physical or electronic means and attempt to influence them or tamper with evidence in any manner; (viii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time; (ix) Applicant shall not attempt to contact the victim either physically or by any electronic devices / means until the trial is completed and the verdict is delivered by the Trial Court; and (ix) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail the prosecution to seek cancellation of this order. 12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case and the trial shall be adjudicated on its own merits in accordance with law. 13. Bail Application is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 6 of 6 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.09.24 15:43:08 +0530