Disposed

Sanjay Rajbahadur Agrawal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Aug 2021WP/940/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench dismissed a writ petition concerning the delay in deciding a discharge application. The Court directed the Magistrate to decide the matter expeditiously within four weeks and posted it for a compliance report. The Court clarified it had not considered the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Magistrate to decide the discharge application expeditiously within four weeks of the date of the order.

Sanjay Rajbahadur Agrawal and Ors. Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

916-CRIWP940-2021.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 940 OF 2021

¶5

Sanjay Rajbahadur Agrawal & ors.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Aditya Pratap, i/b Aditya Pratap Law Offie, for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mrs. M. H. Mhatre, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶11

CORAM: S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 11^th AUGUST, 2021

¶12

PC:-

¶13

Heard Mr. Pratp, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Mhatre, the learned APP for the State.

¶14

As the petitioner fled an appliiation for disiharge, whiih awaited adjudiiation, by an order dated 5^th Marih, 2021, we had ialled a report from the jurisdiitional Magistrate.

¶15

In the iommuniiation dated 18^th Marih, 2021, the learned Magistrate had reported the Court that the disiharge appliiation (Exhibit-8) was posted for arguments on 9^th April, 2021.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioners informs the Court that on 9^th April, 2021, the proieeding again iame to be adjourned to 24^th June, 2021. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterates the grievanie that the disiharge

¶17

1/2

¶18

916-CRIWP940-2021.DOC

¶19

appliiation has not been expeditiously deiided by the learned Magistrate despite the matter having been posted for ionsideration on numerous dates.

¶20

As the petitioners have already fled appliiation for disiharge, we deem it appropriate to direit the learned Magistrate seized with the matter to deiide the same expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of iommuniiation of this order.

¶21

The petitioners – aiiused shall render the neiessary iooperation in the expeditious deiision on the said appliiation and shall not seek adjournment on any iount whatsoever. The learned APP appearing in the matter before the learned Magistrate shall also render iooperation and not seek adjournment.

¶22

We ilarify that we have not entered into the merits of the matter and all iontentions of the parties are kept open for ionsideration.

¶23

With the aforesaid ilarifiation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶24

We, however, post the matter only for reporting iomplianie on 20^th September, 2021, under the iaption “for iomplianie”.

¶25

2/2

Sanjay Rajbahadur Agrawal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Rajbahadur Agrawal and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Minakshi Narendra Sheth and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rahul Dilip Dhotre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin D. Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Zunzar S/O. Suresh Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandhu Sarwan Singh Santok Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mukesh Sadashiv Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.