Remanded

Deepak Prakashdas Bairagi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Nov 2021WP/279/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal writ petitioner, accused in POCSO trial, challenged rejection of omnibus application for recalling five witnesses. Court held omnibus prayer cannot be allowed without specific grounds for each witness. Petitioner permitted to file fresh application within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file fresh recall application within three weeks; trial Court to decide same on merits without considering impugned order's observations.

Deepak Prakashdas Bairagi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

958- Cri.W.P. 279-2021.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

958 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.279 OF 2021

¶5

DEEPAK PRAKASHDAS BAIRAGI .. PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. RESPONDENT

¶6

.. RESPONDENT

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni APP for Respondents: Mr. S.P. Sonpawale

¶8

…. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 17.11.2021

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

This petition takes exception to the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon below Exh. 84 in Special (POCSO) Case No. 7 of 2017.

¶11

The petitioner herein, who is an accused in the said Session case, fled an application at Exh.84 for recalling P.W. No.1 to P.W. No.5, for further cross-examination. The learned trial Court rejected the application by the order impugned.

¶12

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Respondent.

¶13

¶14

958- Cri.W.P. 279-2021.odt

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court rejected the application inter alia on the ground that it is fled belatedly. It is submitted that said observation is wrong. It is further submitted that no proper crossexamination was conducted by the earlier lawyer of the petitioner. It is submitted that considering the serious nature of ofence the trial Court ought to have allowed the application. In support of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon in the Judgment reported in the case of Kishor Anandrao Gaidhane Vs. The State of Maharashta reported in (2018 ALL MR (Cri) 3470) so also Judgment reported in the case of Machindra Dattataya Kokate and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2018 ALL MR (Cri) 3472).

¶16

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent supported the order impugned.

¶17

I have perused the application fled by the petitioner at Exh.84. The petitioner has made omnibus prayer to recall the fve witnesses on the basis of common ground that they were not properly cross-examined by the earlier Advocate for the petitioner. Such omnibus prayer cannot be

¶18

¶19

958- Cri.W.P. 279-2021.odt

¶20

allowed in absence of separate and specifc ground for recalling each witness.

¶21

The petitioner is thus permitted to fle fresh application before the trial Court. If such application is fled, the trial Court shall decide the said application on its own merit without being infuenced by the observations made in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order dated 20.01.2021 and rejection of the application at Exh.84.

¶22

The petitioner is permitted to fle an application within three weeks from today.

¶23

The petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶24

( N. R. BORKAR )

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

ysk

Deepak Prakashdas Bairagi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Prakashdas Bairagi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra S/O. Soma Tayde Vs Mangala Ravindra Tarte (as Shown in Title Clause of Judgement) Mangala W/O. Kailas Sonawane

Ramdeo Chintaman Badgujar Vs Vaishali Ramdeo Badgujar and Others

Shaikh Iqbal S/O Shaikh Gani Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nita W/O. Suresh Deth Vs Dagdu Shankar Mistri

Nilkath Shankarrao Katkar and Others Vs Mahesh Ananda Patil and Others

Meghana @ Sonali W/O. Tushar Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.