Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 492 to 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 505

Nominal Index

Baliram Sitaram Chavan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 492

Dhiren Sushil Roy vs Cyber Police Station, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 493

Viren Buildcon LLP vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 494

In Re: Unauthorised recording of the Court proceedings vs Dilip Wagh, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 495

Vinayak Popat Wale vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 496

Bhimaji Parshuram Sabale vs Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 497

Zakir Ali Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 498

Jai Hind Sindhu Education Trust vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 499

Rahul Raj Singh vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 500

Devesh Ravindra Sawant vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 501

Vijay vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 502

Sajiduzzaman Mhammad Hanif Shahid vs Sagar Durgadas Rathod,2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 503

Kasif Sahabuddin Khan vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 504

Krushna Arun Shingare vs State of Maharashtra, 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 505

Final Orders/Judgment:

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) 492

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.

Weed Out Advocates Who Casually Defy Court Orders, Take Stern Action Against Them: Bombay High Court To State Bar Council

Case Title: Dhiren Sushil Roy vs Cyber Police Station

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 493

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.

Extra Excavation Alone Does Not Justify Royalty On Soil Unless Its Use As Minor Mineral Is Shown: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Viren Buildcon LLP vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 494

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) 495

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) 496

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) 497

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) 498

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) 499

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) 500

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) 501

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) 502

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) 503

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) 504

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) 505

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.

Others Developments:

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 of Chief 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.