Nominal Index

Nikhil Madhukar Thepale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 489

Samantha Ruth Prabhu vs John Does, Ashok Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 490

Rani Pratap Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 491

Pawan Subhash Sarkale vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 492

M/s. Economy Engineering Co. vs M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 493

Baliram Sitaram Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 494

Dhiren Sushil Roy vs Cyber Police Station, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 495

Viren Buildcon LLP vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 496

In Re: Unauthorised recording of the Court proceedings vs Dilip Wagh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 497

Vinayak Popat Wale vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 498

Zakir Ali Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 500

Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 501

Rahul Raj Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 502

Devesh Ravindra Sawant vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 503

Vijay vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 504

Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid vs Sagar Durgadas Rathod,2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 505

Krushna Arun Shingare vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 507

XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 508

R vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 509

In Re: Compliance with the Directions Issued by the Supreme Court vsState of Goa , 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 510

Jaibun Mohammed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 511

Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited vs Heera Construction Company Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 512

Shrihari Hardas Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 513

Sunetra Rajendra Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 514

State of Maharashtra vs Dhananjay Sakharam Bhosale, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 515

Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 516

Shivshankar Shripal Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 517

M/s Ganesh Land Developers & Construction Private Limited vs Shradhha Realtors, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 518

In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 519

Sirish Bhagawn Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 520

Antaral Co-Operative Housing Society vs Enforcement Directorate, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 521

Bipin Satish Chandra Agrwal vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 522

State of Maharashtra vs Unique Identification Authority of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 523

Ganesh Hotlappa @ Prabhakar Padampalle vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 524

Omprakash Ramdhani Kanaujia vs The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 525

Marathi Wadal Pratishthan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 526

Anand Harishchandra Chouhan vs Smt. Shaila, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 527

In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 528

Khadeejah Shahbuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 529

Ashwin Ashara vs MCGM, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 530

Ganesh Kailas Pawar vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 531

Khadeejah Shahbuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 532

Shri Nisar Mohammed Pathan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 533

Harjit Kaur Onkar Singh Kalra vs Rose Venkateshan V Alias Rose Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 534

Auto Credit Corporation vs Mukesh Bansilal Shah, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 535

Rajendra Suryabhan Darade vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 536

XYZ vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 537

Arun Thomas Ferreira vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 538

Vishnu Trimbak Warungase vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 539

Final Orders/Judgment:

Circulating Objectionable Photos On WhatsApp Is 'Within Public View', Can Attract SC/ST Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Nikhil Madhukar Thepale vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 489

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that the act of circulating objectionable videos or photographs of a person belong to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe on a social media platform like WhatsApp, would attract the provisions of the stringent Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the same is within the 'public view.'

Bombay High Court Protects Samantha Ruth Prabhu's Personality Rights, Says Social Media Platforms Must Exercise Due Diligence

Case Title: Samantha Ruth Prabhu vs John Does, Ashok Kumar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 490

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) while protecting the personality rights of South Indian film actress Samantha Ruth Prabhu, ordered Google, Meta Platforms and other social media platforms and John Doe (unknown parties), to pull down the objectionable and derogatory content uploaded featuring her.

That Trafficking Victim Is A Bangladeshi Immigrant Is No Defence : Bombay High Court Upholds Brothel Owner's Conviction

Case Title: Rani Pratap Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 491

In a strongly worded judgment, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) held that a Indian Citizen booked for running a brothel and forcing a woman into prostitution cannot be spared just because the woman is an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh as this would be nothing but 'victim shaming.' The High Court said that labels such as 'illegal immigrant' does not strip the woman's dignity and protection against trafficking.

Mere Demand Of Exorbitant Amount As Settlement To Withdraw Litigation Not "Extortion": Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pawan Subhash Sarkale vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 492

The Bombay High Court has held that merely demanding an exorbitant or disproportionate amount during settlement talks does not by itself attract Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code or constitute an offence of extortion. The Court observed that an intentional threat or fear of injury is an essential ingredient of the offence, and quashed the FIR against the flat purchasers.

Conversion Of Proprietorship To Family-Owned Private Limited Company Not 'Subletting' Under Public Premises Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Economy Engineering Co. vs M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 493

The Bombay High Court has held that conversion of a proprietorship concern into a partnership firm and subsequently into a private limited company comprising the original tenant's family members does not amount to subletting where no third person is inducted into the business. The Court further held that the 2015 amendment to Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, replacing “may” with “shall”, has prospective effect.

Child Victim Admitting She 'Memorized' Her Statement Does Not Automatically Prove Tutoring: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Baliram Sitaram Chavan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 494

The Bombay High Court has held that a child victim's admission that she had memorized what was read to her by the police does not, by itself, establish that she was tutored. The Court observed that where the victim remains steadfast in cross-examination, and her material testimony remains intact, such an admission cannot be treated as sufficient to discredit her evidence.

Case Title: Dhiren Sushil Roy vs Cyber Police Station

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 495

The Bombay High Court has ordered the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) to weed out advocates who willfully and casually refuse to obey the court orders and to further take a strict action against such advocates and give a clearly strong message to the members not to defy court orders.

Case Title: Viren Buildcon LLP vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 496

The Bombay High Court had held that extra excavation of soil/earth during construction, by itself, does not make the excavated material a minor mineral so as to attract royalty. The Court observed that royalty cannot be imposed unless it is positively demonstrated, or clear inferences can be drawn, that the excavated material was used for purposes specified in the relevant notification.

Bombay High Court Seizes Man's Phone For Recording Court Proceedings, Imposes ₹10,000 Costs

Case Title: In Re: Unauthorised recording of the Court proceedings vs Dilip Wagh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 497

Observing that instances of litigants recording Court proceedings and misusing the same are on the rise, the Bombay High Court on Monday (October 5) ordered confiscation of a man's mobile handset for video recording the proceedings and also imposed cost of Rs 10,000 for such act.

'Prescribing Diploma-Only Eligibility Criterion Not Illegal Merely Because Degree Holders Are Excluded': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vinayak Popat Wale vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 498

The Bombay High Court has held that prescribing a Diploma as an essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer is not illegal merely because candidates possessing only an Engineering Degree are excluded. The Court held that the employer is well-equipped to determine the desirable qualification for a particular post and that the Court cannot lay down conditions of eligibility or treat a higher qualification as equivalent to the prescribed qualification.

Informing Accused In Prison About Plea To Extend Investigation Period Not Enough; Must Produce Them Before Court: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Bhimaji Parshuram Sabale vs Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 499

Merely informing the undertrial prisoner through the Jail Superintendent about the prosecution having applied for extension of the 180-days period for completing the probe under stringent Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and granting an opportunity to the accused person to file a written reply will not automatically equate with the accused person's production before the Court, held the Bombay High Court recently while granting bail to 8 men booked in a case wherein over 1.837 kgs of mephedrone was recovered.

Bombay High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail To Galaxy Hospital Licensee In Illegal Abortion Death Case

Case Title: Zakir Ali Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 500

The Bombay High Court has held that a hospital licensee cannot disown an illegal abortion conducted by an unqualified person merely by claiming that he had not performed any “overt act”, while rejecting anticipatory bail to the licensee of Galaxy Hospital. The Court observed that the applicant, who had control and supervision over the hospital, was duty-bound to ensure that it was being run in compliance with statutory requirements and that qualified medical practitioners and nurses were engaged.

'Merely Running School Is Not Charitable Purpose': Bombay High Court Rejects Education Trust's Property-Tax Exemption Bid

Case Title: Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 501

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust seeking exemption from property tax, holding that an educational institution must establish for every financial year that its buildings and lands are solely occupied and used for a public charitable purpose. The Court held that merely running an educational institution, or being a linguistic minority institution, does not by itself entitle a Trust to exemption under Section 132 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.

After A Decade, Bombay High Court Discharges Rahul Raj Singh From TV Actress Pratyusha Banerjee Suicide Case

Case Title: Rahul Raj Singh vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 502

Nearly after a decade of being named as an accused in the suicide case of popular TV actress Pratyusha Banerjee, the Bombay High Court recently discharged her boyfriend and event planner Rahul Raj Singh, observing that there was no material on record to show that the Balika Vadhu fame actress took the extreme step due to the alleged harassment by him.

'Mindset Needs To Change': Bombay High Court Criticises Practice Of Prosecutors 'Vehemently' Opposing Bail Despite Long Incarceration

Case Title: Devesh Ravindra Sawant vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 503

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 7) criticised the 'practice' of the public prosecutors to 'vehemently' oppose bail applications even in cases of long incarceration. The High Court said that even in cases where an accused is behind the bars for years altogether, the prosecutors oppose the bail applications citing the 'severity' of the crime.

Pouring Kerosene On Wife And Telling Her To Die Constitutes Abetment To Suicide Even If She Ignited Herself: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Vijay vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 504

The Bombay High Court has held that pouring kerosene on wife and telling her to die amounted to active instigation and provocation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, upholding the conviction of a husband whose wife subsequently set herself on fire. The Court observed that although the deceased herself ignited the fire, the accused had put her in a situation where she took the extreme step.

'Use Of Threatening & Abusive Language Not Bona Fide Mistake': Bombay High Court Holds Advocates In Contempt

Case Title: Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid vs Sagar Durgadas Rathod

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 505

The Bombay High Court has held two advocates guilty of contempt of Court for threatening a Judicial Officer in open court and attempting to pressurise him while he was conducting proceedings. The Court emphasized the need to maintain dignity, and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 each and costs of ₹50,000 on the advocates concerned, besides referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

Section 482(4) BNSS Bar On Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not Absolute; Court Can Examine If Prima Facie Ingredients Are Disclosed: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Kasif Sahabuddin Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 506

The Bombay High Court had held that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in cases involving offences under Sections 65 or 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) is not absolute. The Court observed that the application can be examined to determine whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out; if they are, the statutory bar operates and the application is not maintainable.

Bombay High Court Directs Maharashtra DGP To Review Arrest Protocols; Ensure Compliance With SC Directions

Case Title: Krushna Arun Shingare vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 507

The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Director General of Police to review existing arrest instructions and forms and issue corrective instructions to ensure that the binding directions of the Supreme Court are complied with. The Court observed that merely mentioning the crime number and penal provisions, or recording that the accused was informed of the grounds, does not establish compliance when the documents contain no factual basis connecting the accused with the offence.

Bombay High Court Denies Relief To Woman Seeking Abortion On Ground That Her Husband Concealed Previous Marriage

Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 508

The Bombay High Court recently denied permission to terminate the pregnancy of a 33-year-old married woman, who sought the leave on the ground that her husband had concealed his earlier marriage from her. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish Chavan noted that the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act does not allow a woman to terminate pregnancy on the grounds of her husband concealing an earlier marriage.

Asking Daughter-In-Law To Do Household Chores Like Washing Clothes, Utensils Is Not Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Bombay High Court

Case Title: R vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 509

In-laws asking daughter-in-law to do household chores like washing clothes and utensils would not amount to cruelty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and they cannot be prosecuted on this allegation, held the Bombay High Court while quashing FIR against six members of a family.

Bombay High Court Threatens Contempt Action Against Goa Civic Officials Over Failure To Submit Stray Dog, Cattle Data

Case Title: In Re: Compliance with the Directions Issued by the Supreme Court vsState of Goa 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 510

The Bombay High Court has warned that it may initiate contempt proceedings against Panchayat Secretaries, Chief Officers of Municipal Councils and the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Panaji (CCP) for failing to comply with directions on collecting data about stray dogs, pet dogs and stray cattle, and setting up temporary animal shelters. The Court reiterated that the officials must comply with its directions and file the required reports.

[NDPS Act] Female's Search Must Be In Seclusion; Conducting Search In Presence Of Males Vitiates Seizure: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Jaibun Mohammed Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 511

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a woman accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, holding that the search and seizure of contraband from her was prima facie vitiated because the search was conducted in the presence and gaze of male police personnel and a male panch witness. The Court observed that Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act requires a female accused to be searched in seclusion and to the exclusion of males, and that merely having a female police officer conduct the search does not satisfy this requirement.

Bombay High Court Pulls Up Litigant For Joining Court VC While Lying On Bed Without Clothes

Case Title: Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited vs Heera Construction Company Private Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 512

The Bombay High Court has deprecated the conduct of a litigant who joined a video-conferencing hearing while lying on a bed without wearing clothes, observing that parties cannot be exhibited in such a manner before the Court while seeking exemption from personal appearance. The Court directed the litigant to leave the video conference and directed that on the next date, he must either remain personally present or place appropriate medical documents on record if he was medically advised not to travel.

“Caste, Tribe Or Community Can Never Constitute Incriminating Material”: Bombay High Court Rejects Bail Pleas Of Accused Under MCOCA

Case Title: Shrihari Hardas Chavan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 513

The Bombay High Court has held that a person's caste, tribe or community can never constitute incriminating material and that no adverse inference can be drawn on that basis. The Court observed that the prosecution must stand or fall on legally admissible evidence while rejecting bail applications filed by three accused booked under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

'Non-Payment Of Salaries To Employees Violates Fundamental Rights Under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) & 21': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sunetra Rajendra Pawar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 514

The Bombay High Court has held that non-payment of salaries directly breaches the fundamental rights guaranteed to employees under Articles 14, 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court observed that no institution can function in a manner prejudicial to or exploitative of its employees by withholding their salaries, which constitute their basic source of livelihood and survival.

Additional Public Prosecutor Not State Employee; Cannot Be Prosecuted As 'Public Servant' Under PC Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Dhananjay Sakharam Bhosale

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 515

The Bombay High Court has upheld the discharge of an Additional Public Prosecutor accused of demanding a bribe, holding that an Additional Public Prosecutor appointed on a tenure basis is not a public servant for the purposes of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of UP vs Johri Mal, which distinguishes the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors from that of Assistant Public Prosecutors, who are employees of the State.

"Urgent Need To Enact Advocates Protection Law": Bombay High Court While Denying Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Booked For Assaulting Lawyer

Case Title: Kiran Madhavrao Kahandal vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 516

While denying anticipatory bail to a man booked for assaulting and pressuring an advocate from appearing in a criminal case for a litigant, the Bombay High Court said that there is an 'urgent' need of enacting a comprehensive legislation to provide protection to Advocates.

No HC Leave Required Under Section 378(3) CrPC To Appeal Acquittal Before Sessions Court: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Shivshankar Shripal Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 517

The Bombay High Court has held that an appeal against acquittal filed before the Sessions Court under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not require leave of the High Court under Section 378(3). The Court observed that the amendment to Section 378 changed only the procedural forum for filing an appeal and did not affect the substantive right of appeal.

Counterclaim Need Not Concern Same Property As Suit: Bombay High Court Restores Claim, Says Plaintiff's Exclusion Request Is Not Binding

Case Title: M/s Ganesh Land Developers & Construction Private Limited vs Shradhha Realtors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 518

The Bombay High Court has held that a counterclaim need not relate to the same property or cause of action involved in the plaintiff's suit, while restoring a counterclaim excluded by the trial court. The Court observed that the discretion vested in the Court under Order VIII Rule 6-C CPC is required to be exercised by the Court in a judicious manner to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure the determination of all the questions in controversy.

Firecracker Ban On Roads Applies To All Festivities Year-Round Across Maharashtra: Bombay High Court Clarifies

Case Title: In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 519

Observing that the future generations must remain healthy and not be visiting hospitals for medical treatment, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 15) made it clear that its earlier order imposing a total ban on bursting of fire crackers on public streets would not be limited only to the Ganapti festival but the same would be applicable to all the religious festivals celebrated throughout the year, across Maharashtra.

Financial Burden On State Is No Ground To Deny Legitimate Dues To Teachers: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Sirish Bhagawn Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 520

The Bombay High Court while ordering the Maharashtra Government to grant the benefit of 'rectified' pay scale under the fifth pay commission to teachers with effect from January 1, 1996 instead of January 1, 2000, held that merely because there will be a financial burden on the State, the teachers cannot be denied their legitimate dues.

Bombay High Court Paves Way For Redevelopment Of Building Stalled Because Of ED Attaching A Flat; Orders Agency To Give NOC

Case Title: Antaral Co-Operative Housing Society vs Enforcement Directorate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 521

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 15) ordered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to grant a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) to a housing society so that it could proceed with its redevelopment, which was stuck because one of the flats among the total 10 flats in the 44-year-old building was attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Bombay High Court Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation For Illegal Arrest; Directs Action Against Police, Magistrate

Case Title: Bipin Satish Chandra Agrwal vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 522

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 22) ordered the Maharashtra Government to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to a man, who was illegally arrested by the Mumbai Police and was kept in detention for nearly 26 days.

Bombay High Court Calls For Strict Action Against Those Helping Foreign Nationals Obtain Fake Aadhar, PAN Cards

Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Unique Identification Authority of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 523

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 22) ordered the Maharashtra Police to take strict action not only against foreign nationals illegally entering Indian borders but also against those Indians, who help such infiltrators settle here by creating unauthorised documents like Aadhar Card, PAN Card and also the Election Card.

Removal Of Undergarment Without Further Act Amounts To 'Attempt To Commit Sexual Assault' Under POCSO Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ganesh Hotlappa @ Prabhakar Padampalle vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 524

The Bombay High Court has held that removing a child's undergarment with sexual intent, without proceeding to any further act, amounts to an attempt to commit sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court reduced the sentence of a man convicted in a case involving a three-and-a-half-year-old girl from five years to three-and-a-half years' rigorous imprisonment, applying Section 18 of the POCSO Act.

Bombay High Court Seizes Phone After Advocate's Clerk Caught Recording Court Proceedings, Fines Both

Case Title: Omprakash Ramdhani Kanaujia vs The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 525

The Bombay High Court recently ordered the seizure of a mobile handset and further imposed cost of Rs 10,000 on an advocate's clerk caught videorecording the court proceedings, purportedly on instructions of a Junior Advocate. The High Court also imposed cost of Rs 25,000 on the said Junior Advocate.

Mere Expectation Of Large Crowd At Garba Event On Ramlila Maidan Cannot Be Termed Law & Order Situation: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Marathi Wadal Pratishthan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 526

The Bombay High Court has allowed a cultural organisation to organise Garba at Ramlila Maidan during Navratri, observing that the mere expectation of a large crowd cannot be treated as a law and order situation. The Court held that concerns regarding the annual Ravan Dahan event at the same ground could be addressed by imposing appropriate safety conditions.

Major Unmarried Daughter Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite Alternative Remedy Under HAMA: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Anand Harishchandra Chouhan vs Smt. Shaila

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 527

The Bombay High Court has held that the availability of an alternative remedy under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) does not bar a major unmarried daughter from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court observed that maintenance could not be denied to the daughter merely because she could pursue a separate remedy under Section 20(3) of HAMA.

Bombay High Court Criticises Celebrities Charging For Anti-Firecracker Campaign, Says They Must Give Back To Society

Case Title: In Re: Noise and Environmental Pollution vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 528

Expressing displeasure after hearing that no Bollywood actor has come forward to help the Maharashtra Government in its proposed campaign against bursting of firecrackers, the Bombay High Court on Monday (October 26) reminded the celebrities that its their time to give it back to the society and made it clear to the State not to 'waste' public money to rope in any celebrity for the said campaign.

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Pune Engineering Student For Reposting Critical Post On 'Operation Sindoor'

Case Title: Khadeejah Shahbuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 529

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (October 27) quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a 20-year-old female engineering student for reposting a controversial post against Indian Army's "Operation Sindoor" against Pakistan. Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav said, "Noting the fact that the petitioner is a young engineering student, I have allowed her plea."

Redevelopment Dispute Over Additional Flat Area, Amenities Can't Be Decided In Writ Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ashwin Ashara vs MCGM

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 530

A writ of certiorari or mandamus cannot be issued to adjudicate a private dispute between flat owners and a developer concerning claims for additional flat area, amenities, parking and compensation arising out of a redevelopment project, the Bombay High Court has held.

Accused Being An Alcoholic Does Not Justify Fabricating Sexual Assault Allegations To 'Teach Him Lesson': Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ganesh Kailas Pawar vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 531

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter, observing that being an alcoholic and allegedly harassing family members cannot, by themselves, justify levelling serious allegations against him merely to teach him a lesson. The Court found material inconsistencies and improvements in the statements of the complainant and the victim, which raised doubts about the prosecution's case at the stage of bail.

Mere Possibility Of Communal Disturbance Not Enough For Criminal Prosecution Over Social Media Post: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Khadeejah Shahbuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 532

The Bombay High Court while quashing FIR against a 20-year-old female engineering student for reposting a controversial post against "Operation Sindoor", held that a mere possibility that a publication may lead to resentment or displeasure, cannot be a ground to prosecute someone.

SC/ST Act Not Attracted In Absence Of Independent Witnesses To Alleged Caste-Based Slurs: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR

Case Title: Shri Nisar Mohammed Pathan vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 533

The Bombay High Court has quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against two accused in a property dispute, holding that the essential ingredients of the offences were not prima facie established. The Court observed that no independent witness had corroborated the allegation that caste-based slurs were used in a place within public view.

Bombay High Court Slams Litigant Who Attempted To Throw Purse At Judge After Adverse Order, Says It Won't Pass Orders In Fear

Case Title: Harjit Kaur Onkar Singh Kalra vs Rose Venkateshan V Alias Rose Kumar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 534

A regular hearing in a civil suit before the court room number 54 of the Bombay High Court turned shocking when a litigant tried to throw her purse towards the judge, after an order was passed against her. The female litigant, however restrained herself immediately.

Failure To Seek Clubbing Of Matters Not Ground To Dismiss Application Or Impose ₹25 Lakh Cost: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Auto Credit Corporation vs Mukesh Bansilal Shah

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 535

The Bombay High Court has set aside an order dismissing a chamber summons and imposing costs of ₹25 lakh, holding that the applicant's failure to seek clubbing of the matter with pending civil revision applications was not a ground to dismiss the application or impose such costs. The Court directed the Registry to move the Chief Justice for appropriate orders to have the matters tagged together for hearing.

Discouraging Parents From Reporting Child's Sexual Assault Not By Itself Offence Of Non-Reporting U/S 21 POCSO Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Rajendra Suryabhan Darade vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 536

Discouraging the parents of a minor from reporting an offence publishable under the stringent Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act would not be punishable under section 21 of the Act as it only punishes failure to report an offence under the Act, held the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 28).

Bombay High Court Rejects Woman's Plea To Terminate 24-Week Pregnancy, Says Marital Discord Not Irreconcilable

Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 537

The Bombay High Court has rejected a 34-year-old woman's plea to terminate her 24-week pregnancy, observing that the marital discord between her and her husband did not appear to be serious or irreconcilable.

Reminding Maharashtra Police Of Its Motto, Bombay High Court Declares Arun Ferreira's 2011 Arrest Illegal, Grants ₹2 Lakh Compensation

Case Title: Arun Thomas Ferreira vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 538

Reminding the Maharashtra Police of its motto - Sadrakshnaya Khalanighrahanaya - which is to protect the good and punish the evil, the Bombay High Court recently held that the September 2011 arrest of activist Arun Ferreira was "illegal" and therefore, ordered the State to pay a compensation of Rs 2 lakhs to him.

"Matter Of Serious Concern": Bombay High Court Flags Misuse Of Former CJ's Name By Special Officer In Trust Matter

Case Title: Vishnu Trimbak Warungase vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 539

The Bombay High Court has quashed a communication issued by a Special Officer in the name of the then Chief Justice, directing the withdrawal and suspension of a list of recommended trustees of a Nashik temple trust, holding that the officer had acted with gross impropriety and contrary to law. The Court observed that the Special Officer had misused the name of the Chief Justice and that the conduct possibly amounted to serious misconduct.

Others Developments:

Bombay High Court Flags MP Parth Pawar's 99% Stake In Firm That Bought Govt Land At Discount; DGP To Monitor Further Probe

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) flagged that Parth Pawar, son of Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar and a Rajya Sabha MP, holds 99% stake in Ameida Enterprises LLP, which allegedly purchased a 40-acre government-owned land parcel in Pune's Mundhwa area at a price much lower than its actual value.

Goa SIR: Bombay High Questions ECI Over Automated Rejection Of Form 8

The Bombay High Court at Goa on Thursday (October 1) sought to know from the Election Commission of India (ECI) as to why Form 8 applications meant for changing the address in the Voter ID were being rejected by its automated software system, during the ongoing process of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in the State.

Maharashtra SIR: Bombay High Court Declines Oral Plea To Restrain ECI From Deleting Voters' Names, Says SC Seized Of Issue

The Bombay High Court on Monday (October 5) refused to pass orders staying deletion of names of any citizen from the voters list in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Maharashtra. A division bench ofChief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna said it will observe judicial propriety and follow the directive of the Supreme Court, which, it was informed, had in November last year, restrained all High Courts from entertaining petitions challenging the validity of the SIR or any other aspects related to the process.

'What Is SIR's Purpose If Citizens Are Being Removed From Voter's List? Bombay High Court Asks ECI

The Bombay High Court bench at Goa on Monday (October 5) orally questioned the manner in which the election authority has been deleting names of citizens under the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Reminding the Election Commission of India (ECI) of the Supreme Court's observations that the Commission is obligated to ensure that all Indian Citizens are included in the final voter list, a division bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar told ECI:

Maharashtra Has Become 'Centre' Of Maoist Urban Network: State Defends Special Public Security Act Before Bombay High Court

The Maharashtra Government while defending its decision to enact the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act (MSPSA), on Tuesday (October 6) told the Bombay High Court that because of its highest urban population, the State has become a 'centre' for Maoist urban network and thus in absence of legal framework to ban such 'left wing extremist' organisations, it has come up with this law as done by States like Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

'Protesting Students Aren't Anti-Social, State Should Restore Their Trust' : Bombay High Court On Pune MPSC Protest

"Pune is an education hub of the State and students coming to this city for education are genuinely interested in their studies and they aren't into getting down on streets for their demands, but if they are agitating it means there are some serious grievances, such students cannot be termed as anti-social," observed the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 7) while asking the Maharashtra Government to take genuine steps to get their trust restored in the system.

'We Don't See Any Improvement': Bombay High Court Pulls Up BMC Over Garbage, Poor Hygiene Across Mumbai

Just because South Bombay and Worli are clean does not mean that the entire city of Mumbai is clean, remarked the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (October 7) while pulling up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for not undertaking effective measures to maintain proper health and hygiene across all the 24 wards in the city.

Bombay High Court Expresses Surprise Over Former Cop Sachin Waze Owning Lavish Cars, Notes Extortion Allegations

The Bombay High Court while hearing the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against the bail granted to dismissed cop Sachin Waze in the infamous Antilia Bomb Scare case, on Thursday (October 8) expressed surprise over the former Assistant Police Inspector (API) owning at least five high end cars and travelling in a Mercedes regularly.

Light Pollution: Bombay High Court Directs Maharashtra To Effectively Implement 1998 Order Banning Neon Lights After 11 PM

The Bombay High Court has ordered the Maharashtra Government to ensure that an order passed way back in February 1998, which banned use of neon lights across Mumbai and neighbouring cities is implemented effectively this year, especially during the festive season to avoid causing light pollution. The Court was hearing a petition seeking declaration of 'dark sky friendly' areas across the State along with regulation of use such lights.