The Kashiff Malik case has gained renewed attention after a Mumbai court issued a production warrant against Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik, directing his appearance from Gorakhpur Jail. Representations from a victims’ forum have raised concerns over multiple recorded name variations across different states, which they claim may have affected investigation tracking. The case involves proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as references to other ongoing matters. Authorities have not publicly confirmed all claims, and several allegations remain subject to judicial scrutiny and verification through due legal process.

Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik case: Mumbai warrant, multi-state FIR name variations, and fresh scrutiny over investigation.

A Mumbai court has issued a production warrant against Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik, while representations from a victims’ forum raise fresh questions over identity records, bail proceedings, and investigative action.

The Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik case has drawn renewed attention after a Mumbai court issued a production warrant directing his appearance from Gorakhpur Jail on 7 May 2026. Representations circulated by the National Victims’ Forum against Fake Fashiontv Franchisee Sales Gang describe him as an alleged fraud accused, while also referring to separate rape allegations; those allegations require adjudication in court, and guilt has not been established.

According to the representation, the warrant was issued on 16 April 2026 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 27th Court, Mulund, Mumbai, presided over by Judge Sandeep Virbhadra Swami. The order, issued under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directs the Superintendent of District Jail Gorakhpur to produce the accused before the Mumbai court at 11:00 AM on 7 May 2026 under safe and sure conduct.

The Mumbai matter is identified as Ss SS/324/2016 — Mayank Gupta vs SFL Fitness Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors, under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The representation states that SFL refers to Super Fight League, the mixed martial arts venture founded in 2012 under the leadership of Raj Kundra and, with Shilpa Shetty Kundra publicly associated in past media coverage.

The same representation says Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik is presently in judicial custody in FIR No. 0842/2025, Police Station Ramgarh Tal, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. It further states that he has already been declared a proclaimed offender in Mumbai proceedings. Sprouts News has not independently verified each procedural claim in the representation, and the allegations remain subject to judicial scrutiny.

Multiple recorded names across states become central to the dispute

A central issue raised by the forum is the use of multiple recorded versions of the accused’s name across different jurisdictions. The representation identifies the passport name as Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik, while claiming that separate records list Kashiff Malik Khan, Khan Malik Kasib Sardar Hashim Khan, Kashif Khan, Khan Malik Kashiff Sardar Hashim, Kashiff Khan, and Qashiff.

The cited records span Goa, Jaipur, Vadodara, Mumbai Mulund, Lucknow, and Gorakhpur. The representation alleges that this pattern may have obstructed cross-referencing between cases. However, that assertion is made by the complainant forum and has not been confirmed by any court finding reproduced in the material provided.

Particular emphasis has been placed on Goa FIR No. 71/2014 and an MCA-issued DIN, where the name is said to appear as Kashiff Malik Khan. The forum argues that the placement of “Malik” differs materially from the passport sequence and claims this raises suspicion about the KYC documentation used in connection with Aura Wellness and Healing Services Pvt. Ltd., where the accused allegedly served as a director.

The representation further demands separate scrutiny by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Registrar of Companies, and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office. It argues that if forged KYC records were used in a DIN application, separate offences may arise under the Companies Act, 2013, and relevant provisions concerning forged documents. No determination on that point has been cited from a competent authority in the material supplied.

Also Read: NESCO Concert Drug Overdose Case: Key Accused Arrested.

Related News: Kashiff Khan Fashion TV case: ₹16.94 Cr Tax Evasion Probe.

Related News: Kashiff Khan Bail Rejected in FashionTV Gorakhpur Fraud Case.

The role of other named accused and lawyers comes into focus

The victims’ forum also names Ashiq Abbas Shabbir Ali Jivani as a wanted accused in the Gorakhpur case and describes him as a key alleged strategist within the network. It states that he was appointed as director of Fashiontv India Pvt. Ltd. on 28 September 2022 and alleges that no arrest, summons, or interrogation had taken place within sixteen days of the arrests referenced in the representation.

The document also refers to Krishna Hardik Shahi, Naveen T. Ahuja, and Rukmani in connection with the alleged network. It objects to any reported effort to dilute or drop BNS provisions relating to forged documents against Krishna Shahi, arguing that chats, Zoom meetings, forged agreement handling, and direct dealings with outlets reflected an active rather than merely subordinate role. These claims, too, remain allegations unless tested in court.

A separate section highlights comments attributed to Supreme Court Advocate Kartik Pandey and FTIPL-appointed Advocate Neeraj Shahi. The representation describes Fashion Television India Pvt. Ltd. as associated with Lalit Modi’s group and claims it is the sole legitimate rights-holder of the FashionTV brand in India. In a statement attributed to Neeraj Shahi, he said legal remedies, including a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court and potentially the Supreme Court, would be pursued if relevant BNS sections were dropped or if the named accused were not arrested.

The representation also names Adam Lisowski as an international accused whose alleged role, it says, surfaced in the statement of FTIPL authorised signatory Sushil Machindranath Waghmare. It further says that no investigative action had yet followed that development. No official rebuttal from Adam Lisowski or from the investigating agency was included in the material provided.

Bail calendar, border concerns, and victim testimony claims

Another issue raised concerns the bail timeline in the Sessions Court, Gorakhpur. According to the representation, Krishna Shahi and Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik were arrested on 2 April 2026 and had bail matters adjourned to 20 April, while Naveen T. Ahuja had not filed a bail application. The forum characterises this as a coordinated legal strategy, though that interpretation is its own.

The representation also alleges a possible flight risk through the Nepal border, naming agencies such as the SSB, ITBP, immigration authorities, and Gorakhpur Police as bodies that should maintain vigilance. That warning is framed as source-based apprehension, not an officially confirmed operational intelligence alert in the material provided.

The forum says victims from Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi-NCR, Punjab, and Karnataka have contacted it and are ready to testify in FIR 0842/2025. It alleges that many local FIRs were not registered after being treated as civil disputes or matters belonging to another state. Those claims raise broader questions about interstate coordination in economic crime investigations.

The statement was issued in the name of the National Victims’ Forum against Fake Fashiontv Franchisee Sales Gang, with Rajesh Talwani identified as coordinator. It also references places including Mumbai, Gorakhpur, Lucknow, Jaipur, Vadodara, and Goa as part of the dispute’s geographic spread.

What happens next in the Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik case

The immediate procedural milestone is the scheduled 7 May 2026 production before the Mulund court in Mumbai. The forum has also demanded a CBI investigation, consolidation of FIRs into a master case, LOC or Red Notice steps against named accused, forensic examination of seized digital devices, and recording of statements from victims across states.

Those demands remain advocacy positions rather than judicial orders. Still, the combination of a live production warrant, multiple FIR references, name discrepancies across records, and calls for central investigation ensures that the matter is likely to remain under close legal and public scrutiny.

For now, the central questions are whether agencies will reconcile identity records, whether additional accused will face formal action, and whether courts will order broader investigative steps. Any official response from police, prosecutors, company-linked parties, or named individuals may substantially shape the next phase of this dispute.

Readers’ Appeal:

Unmesh Gujarathi, an investigative journalist, has reported extensively on the alleged scam involving Kashiff Sardar Hashim Khan Malik. If you have credible information, documents, or evidence related to the case, contact the Sprouts News team at 9322755098

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.