Allowed

S. Ramesh Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2019APPW/111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a short order on an interim application by an accused to be added as a respondent in a stayed criminal writ petition. The court allowed the impleadment to enable the accused to seek a no-objection certificate for passport renewal. The court also listed the main writ petition for final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant added as respondent No. 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2141/2014; main writ petition listed for final hearing.

S. Ramesh Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

appw.111.19.25.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2019 (For Intervention) IN

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2141 OF 2014

¶4

S. Ramesh Kumar ...Applicant IN THE MATTER OF : Dhyan Investments & Trading Co. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Ms. Teja Katdare for the Applicant

¶6

Mr. Dinesh Purandare a/w Mr. M. A. Kamdar I/b Kanga & Co. for the Petitioners

¶7

Mr. Limosin A, Sr. P.P. for the Respondent No.1-CBI

¶8

Mrs. S. D. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent No.2-State

¶9

Ms. Smriti Jha a/w Mr. Mohit Prabhu I/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt and Caroe for the Respondent No. 3

¶10

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. MONDAY. 4Th MARCH 2019

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1 Applicant-accused No. 5 in criminal case No. 2 of 1998

¶13

points out that request of accused No. 5 for grant of no objection to

1/3

SQ Pathan

appw.111.19.25.doc

renew passport could not be considered by the trial Court, as matter has been stayed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2141/2014. Accused No. 5, therefore, seeks leave to be impleaded as respondent No. 4, so that, an application for grant of no objection can thereafter be entertained.

¶18

2 The respective counsel have no objection. Learned counsel appearing for CBI, however, states that controversy in Criminal Writ Petition No.2141/2014 pertains to 1992 security scam and most of the witnesses have crossed 70 years of their age. Matter is stayed since last about 5 years. He, therefore, seeks expeditious consideration of main criminal writ petition itself.

¶19

3 We accordingly allow application No. 111/2019. Applicant be added as respondent No. 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2141/2014. Necessary amendment be carried out within one week. If the amendment is not carried out within one week, we grant leave to

¶20

respondent No. 4 to carry out the same within further period of one week.

2/3

SQ Pathan

appw.111.19.25.doc

4 List Criminal Writ Petition No. 2141/2014 for final

¶25

hearing in week commencing from 1^st April 2019.

¶26

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶27

B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶28

3/3

¶29

SQ Pathan

S. Ramesh Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ramesh Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarfaraz Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Paresh Waman Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anirban Shovan Basu and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajendra Mallu Jilkar Vs State of Maharashtra

Evelyn Pacifico Gonsalves Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjeevi Rajagopal and Anr. Vs Dhanush Murthy and Anr.