TALIB RIJWAN SAYYAD vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — BA/689/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--APPLICATION ALLOWED on 29th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM030140312026

Filing Number

BA/3520/2026

Filing Date

08-Apr-2026

Registration No

BA/689/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

29-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--APPLICATION ALLOWED

Last updated 28-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483
Indian Penal Code (I.p.c) Section 307,336,324,143,147,148,149,34
Arms Act Section 3,4,25
Maharashtra Police Act Section 37(1)(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TALIB RIJWAN SAYYAD

    Adv. GHANEKAR NILESH S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Adv. P.P. FOR R/SOLE 1123

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. BrahmeView PDF

    The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed Talib Rijwan Sayyad's bail application for charges under IPC sections 307, 336, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149 and Arms Act offenses. The court held that since no formal order cancelling his previous bail (granted 06.09.2024) existed, his subsequent custody was illegal and he was entitled to release. The applicant was ordered released on a fresh bond under the same conditions as the original bail order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-Apr-2026

    —

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. Brahme

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Shailesh P. BrahmeView PDF

  5. 17-Apr-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 08-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. BA/689/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed Talib Rijwan Sayyad's bail application for charges under IPC sections 307, 336, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149 and Arms Act offenses. The court held that since no formal order cancelling his previous bail (granted 06.09.2024) existed, his subsequent custody was illegal and he was entitled to release. The applicant was ordered released on a fresh bond under the same conditions as the original bail order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case