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
05-06-2026
Registration No
WP/2646/2026
Registration Date
08-06-2026
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
10th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ARIF YUNUS SHAIKH @ MOHAMMAD ARIF SHAIKH
Adv. ANANDMAYA DHORDE
Respondent(s)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
THE SENIOR POLICE INSPECTOR,
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR
FOR CIRCULATION
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-06-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 10-06-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts