SHAMIL SAQUIB NACHAN vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS — HCBM10069852026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010069852026
Filing Number
WP/2988/2026
Filing Date
10-Feb-2026
Judge
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
Coram
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
Bench Type
Division
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
Seeking Directions ( 105 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Last updated 02-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHAMIL SAQUIB NACHAN
Adv. Tahera Qureshi
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
-
2.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
-
3.DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON
-
4.THE SUPERINTENDENT
-
5.THE SUPERINTENDENT
-
6.NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Case History
-
01-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
01-Apr-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. AnkhadView PDF
Summary Criminal Writ Petition No. 2988 of 2026 filed by Shamil Saquib Nachan against the State of Maharashtra was disposed of by the Bombay High Court on 1st April 2026. The petitioner's prayers became infructuous after she was shifted to Byculla Central Prison (Women Prison). The Court held that mere apprehensions of threat to life are insufficient to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
-
27-Feb-2026
Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam A. AnkhadView PDF
-
27-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Feb-2026
Case filed
Summary Criminal Writ Petition No. 2988 of 2026 filed by Shamil Saquib Nachan against the State of Maharashtra was disposed of by the Bombay High Court on 1st April 2026. The petitioner's prayers became infructuous after she was shifted to Byculla Central Prison (Women Prison). The Court held that mere apprehensions of threat to life are insufficient to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts