Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sheikh Rizwan S/O Sheikh Mujib vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3627 OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 11110/2026)
SHEIKH RIZWAN S/O SHEIKH MUJIB APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent-State of
Maharashtra.
2. Leave granted.
3. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated
09.05.2025 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur
Bench (briefly the ‘High Court’ hereinafter), rejecting
the regular bail application of the appellant.
4. Appellant is an accused in Crime No.239/2017
registered at Police Station- Pachpaoli, District-
Nagpur, Maharashtra under Sections 302, 307, 143, 144,
147, 148, 504 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
IRAMNAZ
(for short, ‘IPC’) read with Section 149 of the said
Date: 2026.08.05
13:07:32 IST
Reason:
Code as well as Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police
1
Act, Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections
3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crime Act, 1999.
5. This Court vide order dated 02.06.2026 had issued
notice pursuant to which respondent-State of
Maharashtra has filed counter affidavit.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant was arrested in connection with the related
FIR on 17.08.2017 and has been in custody since then.
Trial is not progressing in a satisfactory manner.
Therefore, there is no possibility of conclusion of the
trial in the near future. In the meanwhile, two of the
co-accused have been granted bail by the High Court.
Therefore, there was no reason for the High Court to
deny bail to the appellant. He submits that appellant
may be granted bail.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-State of Maharashtra, referring to the
counter affidavit, submits that the delay in progress
of the trial is because of the conduct of the appellant
and the other accused. It is they who have sought
adjournments on several dates. That apart, appellant is
a history sheeter and there is possibility of him
committing further crime, if he is enlarged on bail. He
submits that prosecution proposes to examine only 20
2
witnesses, out of which 14 have already been examined.
Therefore, at this stage, appellant may not be enlarged
on bail.
8. Submission of learned counsel for the parties have
received the due consideration of the Court.
9. We feel that notwithstanding the submissions made
by learned counsel for the respondent-State of
Maharashtra, appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail
for the following reasons:
(i) Appellant has been in custody for more than 09
years as of today.
(ii) Two of the co-accused have been enlarged on
bail by the High Court.
10. Insofar as the pruning of the list of witnesses and
conclusion of trial is concerned, we are of the view
that it is entirely upto the prosecution whether the
witnesses cited in the charge sheet should be examined
or not. At the same time, merely because the trial
needs to be expedited, there should not be any undue
pruning of the list of the witnesses which may affect
the case of the prosecution.
11. In the circumstances, we are of the view that an
early conclusion of the trial may not be possible.
12. Having regard to the above, the impugned order
dated 09.05.2025 passed by the High Court is set aside.
3
Consequently, we direct that the appellant shall be
produced before the concerned Trial Court within a
maximum period of 07 days from today, whereafter he
shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions
as may be deemed appropriate. One of the conditions
which the Trial Court may impose upon the appellant is
that the appellant should appear before the Police
Station- Pachpaoli once in a fortnight at 11:00 AM to
mark his presence as an assurance that he has not
involved himself in any other offence. Appellant shall
also ensure that no unnecessary adjournment is sought
for on his behalf.
13. Subject to the above, the Criminal Appeal is
allowed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………………………………………J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
……………………………………………………J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI;
03rd AUGUST, 2026.
AK
4
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11110/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-05-2025
in CRLA(BA) No. 203/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay at Nagpur]
SHEIKH RIZWAN S/O SHEIKH MUJIB Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 166583/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 03-08-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv.
Ms. Farah Hashmi, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Criminal Appeal is allowed in terms of the
signed order placed on file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(ABHINAV KUMAR) (CHETNA BALOONI)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
5
