Sunday, 31, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shabbir Peer Mohammed Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra
2026 Latest Caselaw 5443 Bom

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 5443 Bom
Judgement Date : 22 May, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Shabbir Peer Mohammed Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 May, 2026

                                                                 6-ABA-1328-2026.doc




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1328 OF 2026
Mr. Shabbir Peer Mohammed Shaikh    ... Applicant
             Versus
The State of Maharashtra                           ... Respondent
                          --------------------
Mr. A. Karim Pathan a/w Shane Illahi Turky and Mr. Shoeb Shaikh, for
the Applicant.

Ms. R. S. Tendulkar, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.

Ms. Seema Khan, Police Sub Inspector, D. N. Nagar Police Station.
                          --------------------
                          CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
                                DATE    : 22 nd MAY, 2026.
                                (VACATION COURT)
P.C. :

1.        The Complainant has lodged a Complaint stating that in the year

2016, she had taken divorce from Mr. Imran Shaikh. Thereafter, in the

year 2025, the Applicant informed the Complainant that his first wife

has expired and he is willing to marry the Complainant. The marriage

between the Applicant and the Complainant was solemnized on 30 th

September, 2025. There were several matrimonial discords between

the Applicant and the Complainant and that after few days she would


Manisha                                                                            1/4




 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026                 ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:30:49 :::
                                                                    6-ABA-1328-2026.doc




get calls on her mobile relating to loan. The Complainant stated that

on 15th December 2025 at about 9:00 a.m., while leaving for work, the

Applicant's brother came to their house. The Applicant had called her

transferring for Rs.500/- on G-pay of Shakir i.e. Applicant's brother

and therefore, she transferred the same. After coming back home, she

realised that the Applicant and his brother had stolen her gold

ornaments. The F.I.R. in question was lodged on 13 th February, 2026

with the D. N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai.



2.        Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that there

is gross delay in lodging the F.I.R. Assuming for argument purpose

without admitting that there is theft of gold ornaments, even as per the

case of the Complainant, the theft occurred on 15 th December, 2025.

The F.I.R. which is lodged almost after two months from the alleged

date of theft is thus belated. He submits that because of the

matrimonial discord the present complaint is filed.



3.        Learned A.P.P. submits that the Applicant had stolen the gold ring



Manisha                                                                              2/4




 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026                   ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:30:49 :::
                                                                          6-ABA-1328-2026.doc




from the Complainant's house and the Applicant had pledged the same

with a jeweller. She tenders across the Bar for my perusal a copy of the

statement of the jeweller along with the receipt. On perusal of the

receipt, it is seen that the jeweller has given loan to the Applicant by

pledging a ring of 2.10 gram. She prays for dismissal of the

Application.



4.        Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is

clear that, the gross delay in lodging the F.I.R. speaks volume. The

delay is not only gross but also unexplained. It appears to be a case of

matrimonial discord. The receipt which the learned A.P.P. has

produced mentions the gram of the ring as 2.10 grams, however, the

F.I.R. does not mentions any ring of 2.10 gram of the Complainant.

Therefore, assuming for argument purpose that the Applicant had a

2.10 grams golden ring, it does not appears to be a ring of the

Complainant.          Even      otherwise,   taking     into      consideration           the

matrimonial discord between the parties, custodial interrogation is not

necessary.


Manisha                                                                                    3/4




 ::: Uploaded on - 22/05/2026                         ::: Downloaded on - 23/05/2026 01:30:49 :::
                                                                    6-ABA-1328-2026.doc




5.        In the meantime, till the next date, the Applicant is granted

interim protection on the following terms and conditions:

                                   ORDER

(i) In the event of arrest, the Applicant- Mr. Shabbir Peer Mohammed Shaikh be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.133 of 2026 registered with D. N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai dated 13th February, 2026 for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 351(2), 352, 305(a) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount;

(ii) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station from 1 st June, 2026 to 5th June, 2026 between 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

6. Stand over to 16th June, 2026.

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter