Tofik Badruddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra — 32/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHAU170001492026
e-Filing Number
18-02-2026
Filing Number
81/2026
Filing Date
18-02-2026
Registration No
32/2026
Registration Date
18-02-2026
Court
Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
513
Police Station
PACHOD
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Tofik Badruddin Shaikh
Adv. Abed Mahemud Pathan
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Order |
| 13-03-2026 | Order |
| 12-03-2026 | Order |
| 10-03-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Tofik Badruddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No. 32/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Tofik Badruddin Shaikh's anticipatory bail application in a firearms-related extortion case. The court found sufficient grounds for investigation despite the applicant's name not appearing in the original FIR, ruling that co-accused statements can serve as investigative leads. The court prioritized custodial interrogation necessity for recovering Rs. 77,000 in extorted ransom money, the gravity of offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Indian Arms Act, the applicant's status as a habitual offender with prior SC/ST Atrocities Act conviction, and risk of witness tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Tofik Badruddin Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No. 32/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Tofik Badruddin Shaikh's anticipatory bail application in a firearms-related extortion case. The court found sufficient grounds for investigation despite the applicant's name not appearing in the original FIR, ruling that co-accused statements can serve as investigative leads. The court prioritized custodial interrogation necessity for recovering Rs. 77,000 in extorted ransom money, the gravity of offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Indian Arms Act, the applicant's status as a habitual offender with prior SC/ST Atrocities Act conviction, and risk of witness tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts