Anwar Akbar Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra Advocate - APP — 162/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 15th April 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHJN010005432026
e-Filing Number
02-03-2026
Filing Number
302/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
162/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Jalna
Judge
14-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Decision Date
15-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 14-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
75
Police Station
Badnapur
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Anwar Akbar Shaikh
Adv. SAYYAD MUJIB WAHAB
-
2.Jakir Akbar Shaikh
Adv. SAYYAD MUJIB WAHAB
-
3.Wajid Anwar Shaikh
Adv. SAYYAD MUJIB WAHAB
-
4.Shahnaj Anwar Shaikh
Adv. SAYYAD MUJIB WAHAB
-
5.Sajid Anwar Shaikh
Adv. SAYYAD MUJIB WAHAB
-
6.Sohel Jakir Shaikh
Adv. SAYYAD MUJIB WAHAB
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Maharashtra Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-Apr-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case Summary: Criminal Bail Application No. 162/2026 Decision: The court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Anwar Akbar Shaikh and others. Key Facts: The applicants sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 75/2026, registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita including assault, criminal intimidation, and theft. The case arose from an alleged incident on 23.02.2026 where the applicants allegedly attacked a group (including injured party Ajim Sayyed) with weapons and stole gold ornaments and a mobile phone, stemming from a family dispute over inheritance. Reasoning: The court found custodial interrogation necessary because weapons, mobile phones, and gold ornaments remained unrecovered, despite victims being discharged from hospital. Considering the serious nature of the allegations, the violent manner of the assault, and the need for investigation, the judge held applicants were not entitled to anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
09-Apr-2026
Order
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
06-Apr-2026
Order
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
27-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Arguments
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
-
02-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 162/2026
Case Summary: Criminal Bail Application No. 162/2026 Decision: The court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Anwar Akbar Shaikh and others. Key Facts: The applicants sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 75/2026, registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita including assault, criminal intimidation, and theft. The case arose from an alleged incident on 23.02.2026 where the applicants allegedly attacked a group (including injured party Ajim Sayyed) with weapons and stole gold ornaments and a mobile phone, stemming from a family dispute over inheritance. Reasoning: The court found custodial interrogation necessary because weapons, mobile phones, and gold ornaments remained unrecovered, despite victims being discharged from hospital. Considering the serious nature of the allegations, the violent manner of the assault, and the need for investigation, the judge held applicants were not entitled to anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts