Bombay High Court
BA/1327/2026 of SHAIKH FARUKH SHAIKH HARUN Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS WADKI TQ. PANDHARKAWDA DIST. YAVATMAL on 14 October 2026
1319 of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.1319 OF 2026
SHAIKH SADIK ABDUL GAFFUR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS WADKI, TQ.
PANDHARKAWDA, DIST. YAVATMAL
AND
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.1327 OF 2026
SHAIKH FARUKH SHAIKH HARUN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS WADKI, TQ.
PANDHARKAWDA, DIST. YAVATMAL
Office Notes, Office Memoranda
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Ms. S.A. Ahmed a/w Mr. A.T. Shaikh, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. N.B. Jawade & Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for Non-Applicant-State.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATED : 14th OCTOBER 2026
PER COURT :-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.
2. The application is filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in connection with Crime No.50 of 2016, registered with Police Station Wadaki, Dist. Yavatmal, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 396, 397, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 2026:BHC-NAG:14005
1860 and Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.03.2016, at about 10.30 p.m., the informant, bodyguard of the SDPO and the SDPO were returning from Chikhli to Pandharkawada. Upon reaching Singaldeep, they saw one truck was standing in suspicious circumstance. At that time, applicant Sheikh Sadik Sheikh Gaffar, came out from the said truck and ran away towards the forest, whereas one mobile fell from the pocket of applicant Sheikh Sadik. It is alleged that they saw one broken packet of chilly powder, mobile phone and one knife, which was covered. When they searched nearby area, they found one injured person. When they asked the injured, he stated that three persons were demanding money from him and when he told them that he had deposited money in his account, therefore, those three persons assaulted him with the help of knife. Thereafter, they called ambulance with medical officer for the injured, however, the injured person succumbed to death. Hence, the FIR was registered against the applicants and other accused persons on 17.03.2026.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are in jail for more than nine years. She submits that considering the long incarceration, the applicants deserve to be granted bail. She relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vickki Yadav @ Vikas Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Decided on 25.05.2026, in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9430/2026 and order of this Court in the case of Sheikh Imran @ Imma Sheikh Mujib, passed in Criminal Application (BA) No.1009 of 2026, Dated 17.08.2026,
5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the applications and submitted that no doubt, the applicants are in jail for more than nine years, however, the prosecution has closed its side of evidence and the matter is kept for recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., yesterday as well as today. They submit that it is the applicants who were prolonging the trial. They submit that one of the applicant had filed an application for recalling of all the prosecution witnesses, however, the said application was rejected today by the trial court. They submit that there is no hurdle in proceeding the trial further and therefore, pray to reject the applications.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, so far as the incarceration is concerned, it is not in dispute that the applicants are in jail for more than nine years. However, the trial court has almost concluded the trial since the prosecution has closed the evidence from their side. It appears that, it is the applicant, who has filed the application for recalling of all the prosecution witnesses, however, that application was rejected today by the trial court. Under such circumstances, there is no hurdle to proceed further with the trial, because hardly one month would be required to conclude the trial. It is pertinent to note that if at this stage, the applicants are released on bail, then it would further prolong the matter.
7. I am quite aware about the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vickki Yadav (Supra), has granted bail to the petitioner, who has been in jail since nine years. Even this Court has granted bail to one Sheikh Imran (Supra), wherein the said accused was in jail for about nine years. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has already granted bail to the said persons, who had been long incarceration, considering the fact the trial would be concluded within one month, I am not inclined to grant bail. Hence, the applications are rejected.
8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) asd