895 OF 2026 IN APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2026 Ranu Sherali Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Therefore, the Appellant/Applicant be enlarged on bail
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Mr. Vishal Kolekar, Shubham Kadam and Yash Kamble, for the Applicant.
Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: DATE : N. J. JAMADAR, J. 2nd JULY 2026 P.C.: APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2026
AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 896 OF 2026
(TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN APPEAL) :
3. Heard. Admit. Issue notice to the Respondent returnable on 23rd July 2026. ARS
4.
Mr. D.J. Haldankar, the learned APP, waives service of notice for 36-IA-895-2026.DOC the Respondent.
6. Call R & P. Hearing of the Appeal stands expedited. INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 895 OF 2026
(FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE AND BAIL) :
8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This is an Application for suspension of sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Belapur, by a judgment and order dated 21 st February 2026 passed in Sessions Case No. 145 of 2025, whereby the Applicant has been convicted under Rule 6(a) for contravention of Rule 3(a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.
9. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has deposited the fine of Rs.1,000/-. On account of inadvertence, an application for release of the Applicant on bail was not filed before the trial Court.
10. It was further submitted that, Interim Application No. 896 of 2026 is filed under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ARS 36-IA-895-2026.DOC 1973, seeking permission to lead additional evidence in Appeal. The documents which the Appellant seeks to produce negate the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the Appellant/Applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the Appeal.
11. The Applicant has placed on record documents along with the Application to lead additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which may have bearing upon the legality and correctness of the findings recorded by the trial Court.
12.
Mr. D.J. Haldankar, the learned APP, countered the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant. Inviting attention of the Court to the clause (4) of the impugned order, whereby the police has been directed to take necessary steps for deportation of the Applicant-Accused to Bangladesh, it was submitted that if the Applicant is released on bail during the pendency of the Appeal, the Applicant will not be available for the final hearing of the Appeal.
13. The Court finds that the Applicant (A3) has undergone detention as an under-trial prisoner for the period from 13th October 2023 to 21st October 2023, and she has been taken in custody for undergoing the sentence on the date of the pronouncement of the judgment i.e. 21st February 2026. The Applicant has thus undergone almost four months and 20 days imprisonment. It is unlikely that the Appeal can be taken up for hearing and final disposal in the near future. ARS
14. In these circumstances, if the sentence is not suspended, the 36-IA-895-2026.DOC Appeal may be rendered infructuous.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the Applicant on bail.
16. Hence, the following order: :
O R D E R :
(i) The IA/895/2026 stands allowed. (ii) The substantive sentence of the Applicant Ranu Sherali Shaikh, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belapur, in Sessions Case No. 145 of 2025, arising out of CR No. I-383/2023 registered with APMC Police Station, stands suspended till final disposal of the Appeal on the following conditions: (a) The Applicant shall furnish a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge. (b) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings in this Appeal. Application disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the Appellant/Applicant be enlarged on bail
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 391.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Jul 2026. The bench was DATE N JAMADAR, SESSIONS, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.