ARIF YUNUS SHAIKH @ MOHAMMAD ARIF SHAIKH vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS — WP/2646/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 10th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010262322026
Filing Number
WP/10986/2026
Filing Date
05-Jun-2026
Registration No
WP/2646/2026
Registration Date
08-Jun-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
Seeking Directions ( 105 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
10-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ARIF YUNUS SHAIKH @ MOHAMMAD ARIF SHAIKH
Adv. ANANDMAYA DHORDE
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
-
2.THE SENIOR POLICE INSPECTOR,
-
3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
-
4.THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF
Case Summary: WP/2646/2026 The Bombay High Court quashed an externment order against Arif Yunus Shaikh, finding critical procedural defects. The court held that cases from 2019-2023 lacked a "live link" to the December 2025 externment action due to substantial time gaps, and that a case still under investigation (CR 619/2025) cannot be considered for externment purposes. Additionally, no in-camera statements were recorded to support the authority's subjective satisfaction, rendering the order legally infirm. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Jun-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar
-
09-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF
-
09-Jun-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Jun-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/2646/2026
Case Summary: WP/2646/2026 The Bombay High Court quashed an externment order against Arif Yunus Shaikh, finding critical procedural defects. The court held that cases from 2019-2023 lacked a "live link" to the December 2025 externment action due to substantial time gaps, and that a case still under investigation (CR 619/2025) cannot be considered for externment purposes. Additionally, no in-camera statements were recorded to support the authority's subjective satisfaction, rendering the order legally infirm. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts