Case Name: Danish Ejaj Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Factual Background

The Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road, considered a bail application filed by Danish Ejaj Shaikh under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime Registration No. 156 of 2026 registered at Deolali Police Station. The applicant was accused of offences punishable under Sections 69, 75, 299 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

According to the prosecution, the accused developed a relationship with the complainant by allegedly concealing that he was already married and inducing her to believe that he would marry her. On this assurance, he allegedly established physical relations with her. The prosecution further alleged that another accused sexually harassed the complainant at the workplace and threatened to disclose her relationship to her family to coerce her into submitting to his sexual advances. The FIR also alleged that the accused persons repeatedly insulted the complainant on the basis of her caste and attempted to influence her to convert her religion by providing religious literature, installing an Islamic application on her mobile phone, sharing religious content through social media, arranging religious instruction, and facilitating the use of a hijab and burqa. The prosecution further alleged that the accused intended to alter her identity documents and plan to send her abroad.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, that the investigation was substantially complete, and that he was a permanent resident with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. The prosecution and the complainant opposed the application, arguing that the allegations were grave, supported by prima facie material, and that releasing the accused would create a serious risk of influencing witnesses and obstructing the trial.

Court’s Analysis

The Court observed that, at the stage of deciding a bail application, it was not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence but was instead required to assess the nature and gravity of the allegations, the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, the existence of prima facie material, and the possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Upon examining the investigation papers, the Court found that the allegations against the applicant were serious and disclosed prima facie involvement in offences relating to sexual exploitation under the false promise of marriage, caste-based atrocities, and acts allegedly intended to facilitate religious conversion. The Court also took note of the prosecution’s apprehension that the accused could emotionally manipulate the complainant or interfere with material witnesses if released on bail.

Order of the Court

Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the emotional impact on the complainant, the prima facie evidence collected during investigation, and the possibility of witness intimidation or evidence tampering, the Court held that no case was made out for exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant. It concluded that the applicant did not deserve to be enlarged on bail until the evidence of material witnesses was recorded during trial. Consequently, the Criminal Bail Application was rejected.

Key Takeaway

The decision reiterates that while considering bail in cases involving allegations of sexual exploitation, caste-based offences, and coercive conduct, courts primarily examine the gravity of the accusations, the availability of prima facie material, and the potential impact of release on the fairness of the trial. The ruling underscores that where the prosecution establishes a credible apprehension of witness intimidation, emotional manipulation, or interference with the administration of justice, courts may decline to exercise their discretionary power to grant bail even where the investigation has substantially progressed

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa