Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3383 (BOM)

SHEIKH IMRAN @ IMMA S/O SHEIKH MUJIB v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS PACHPAOLI DIST. NAGPUR

APPP/2563/2026 · 2026-08-17

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Order 170826ba1009.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 1009 OF 2026. Sheikh Imran @ Imma Sheikh Mujib -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri S.D. Chande, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri H.R. Dhumale, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : AUGUST 17, 2026. Heard. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.239/2017 registered with Panchpaoli Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 144, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section 3[1][2][i][ii], 4 of the The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA). 3. The allegations against the applicant are that on 23.04.2017 accused - Sabir went to the pan shop of uncle of Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:10610 Order 170826ba1009.26 2 informant for cigarette, and when money was demanded for said cigarette, he started quarelling, at that time he was having knife with him. Due to above incident, Police were called and the boy was taken, however, afterfter release from jail, Sabir threatened the informant of dire consequences. After 20-25 days, the informant was accosted by said Sabir who again threatened the informant. On 15.08.2017, Sabir along with his associates abused the informant and his father, and his uncle, wherein uncle of informant was assaulted by knife, his father was assaulted with sword, and attempt was made to assault the informant, in which father of the informant expired. Hence, the first information report against accused persons. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since more than 9 years. This Court has already granted bail to other co-accused vide order dated 29.06.2026 in Criminal Application (BA) No.663/2026 on the ground of delay in trial. He further submits that even the Supreme Court has on 03.08.2026 granted bail to one of the co-accused i.e. Sheikh Rizwan Sheikh Mujib by passing orders in Criminal Appeal No.3627/2026 (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.11110/2026). My attention is invited to observations of the Rgd. Order 170826ba1009.26 3 Supreme Court on which Sk.Rizwan was granted bail i.e. (i) Appellant has been in custody for more than 09 years as of today. (ii) Two of the co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the High Court. He submitted that these are two main observations of the Supreme Court, and therefore, learned Counsel submits that although the conduct of appellant and other co-accused was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that they have sought repeated adjournments on several dates, and even it is considered that the appellant therein is history sheeter, still the Supreme Court has granted bail, considering the long incarceration of 9 years. My attention is also invited to the order of trial Court wherein it is stated that the learned A.P.P. has not presented the correct position before the High Court while bail application of Shoaib Khan was being considered. 5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. have vehemently opposed the application by submitting that the trial is at the fag end and hardly prosecution may examine 4-5 witnesses. He submits that total 14 witnesses are to be examined, and in such circumstances, the applicant may not be released on bail. The learned A.P.P. also submits that there are antecedents against the applicant. Rgd. Order 170826ba1009.26 4 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the orders passed by this Court on 29.06.2026, as well as the Supreme Court dated 03.08.2026. Perusal of both the orders demonstrate that factum of long incarceration of applicant is an admitted fact. The applicant is languishing in jail since last 9 years, and till today the trial is not concluded. In my considered opinion, the applicant cannot be kept behind bars even for a single day considering his long incarceration of 9 years. As regards the antecedents against the applicant, the Supreme Court in the above case has also considered the antecedents. Thus, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 29.06.2026 by this Court and in the order dated 03.08.2026 by the Supreme Court, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant /accused Sheikh Imran @ Imma Sheikh Mujib be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.239/2017 registered with Panchpaoli Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 144, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act and Section 3[1][2] [i][ii], 4 of the The Maharashtra Control of Rgd. Order 170826ba1009.26 5 Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. (iii) The accused shall not enter within the territorial jurisdiction where the informant is residing, till the completion of the trial. (iv) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (v) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (vi) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. (vii) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial. (viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 17/08/2026 18:49:38