SAYED MOHAMMED SAUD SHARAFAT HUSAIN vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — ABA/933/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010175532026

Filing Number

ABA/7351/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

ABA/933/2026

Registration Date

07-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. Laddha

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. Laddha

Bench Type

Single

Category

BAIL ( 51 )

Sub-Category

Anticipatory ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 09-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(2), 318(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAYED MOHAMMED SAUD SHARAFAT HUSAIN

    Adv. SHAIKH RUKHSAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. LaddhaView PDF

    Case Summary The Bombay High Court granted pre-arrest bail to Sayed Mohammed Saud Sharafat Husain in a cheating case involving Rs. 4,97,783 for alleged non-delivery of iron pipes. The court found that the allegations prima facie reveal no criminal elements—mere non-payment of money does not constitute cheating without proof of fraudulent intent from the outset. The significant delay in filing the FIR (9 months) and absence of civil proceedings further supported granting bail with conditions: Rs. 25,000 PR Bond, no evidence tampering/witness influence, and mandatory police attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission (Anticipatory Bail Applications)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. Laddha

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ABA/933/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Bombay High Court granted pre-arrest bail to Sayed Mohammed Saud Sharafat Husain in a cheating case involving Rs. 4,97,783 for alleged non-delivery of iron pipes. The court found that the allegations prima facie reveal no criminal elements—mere non-payment of money does not constitute cheating without proof of fraudulent intent from the outset. The significant delay in filing the FIR (9 months) and absence of civil proceedings further supported granting bail with conditions: Rs. 25,000 PR Bond, no evidence tampering/witness influence, and mandatory police attendance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case