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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

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

17-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Order

13-03-2026

Order

12-03-2026

Order

10-03-2026

Order

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case