Dismissed

Mohammed Khizar Hussain Tuhan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Dec 2023WP/2689/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition praying for return of seized passport. The Court allowed withdrawal with liberty to pursue pending application before the Magistrate and directed a decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed and allowed to be withdrawn; liberty granted to pursue pending Magistrate application; direction to Magistrate to decide within two months.

Mohammed Khizar Hussain Tuhan Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

9.wp-2689-19.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2689 OF 2019

¶5

Mohammed Khizar Hussain Tuhan ….. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶6

Mr. Shahood A. Naqvi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

¶8

DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2023

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1.This Writ Petition was filed in the year 2019 for
directions to the officers of Azad Maidan Police Station,
Mumbai to return his passport bearing No. Z 4486333 seized
by them. During pendency of this Petition, the Petitioner
preferred another application before the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in
C.C. No.473/PW/2018. The prayer in that application was
directions for release of his passport and also to seek
permission to travel to UAE between 20.10.2022 to
19.12.2022. Thus, it appears that a similar prayer was made

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

Deshmane(PS)

¶13

: 2 : 9.wp-2689-19.odt

¶14

by the Petitioner before learned Magistrate for return of his
passport. That Application which was filed on 12.10.2022,
is still not decided by the learned Magistrate. Said
Application was filed in the changed circumstances citing
urgency and it was expected that it was decided earlier.

¶15

2.Considering that same issue is pending before
the learned Magistrate, who is seized of the main trial itself,
it would be appropriate if the learned Magistrate decides
that application expeditiously. The application was also
made for permission to travel to UAE between October, 2022
to December, 2022, which prayer obviously does not survive.

¶16

However, the prayer for return of the passport is still not
decided by the learned Magistrate.

¶17

3.Considering this situation, it would be
appropriate if the issue of return of the passport is decided
by the learned Magistrate first. In this view of the matter,
the learned counsel for the Petitioner does not press this
Petition at this stage and seeks liberty to pursue said
application which is pending before the learned Magistrate.

¶18

2 of 3

¶19

: 3 : 9.wp-2689-19.odt

¶20

He seeks directions to the learned Magistrate to decide said

¶21

application within a reasonable period of two months.

¶22

4.Considering these submissions, the Petition is

¶23

allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to
pursue his application pending before the learned Magistrate
for return of his passport. The learned Magistrate shall
decide said application in accordance with law within a
period of two months from today.

¶24

5.With these directions, the Petition is disposed of.

¶25

Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE DESHMANE Date: 2023.12.15 17:50:35 +0530

¶26

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶27

Deshmane (PS)

¶28

3 of 3

Mohammed Khizar Hussain Tuhan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Khizar Hussain Tuhan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Magnates Enterprises and Ors. Vs Income Tax Department through Anne Varghese Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Moreshwar K. Baria Vs Income Tax Department through Anne Varghese Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

M/S. Amey Builders and Property Developers and Ors. Vs Income Tax Department through Anne Varghese Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Nilesh Ravindranath Shukla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subodh Vijay Patwardhan Vs Manoj Bhalchandra Patil and Anr.

Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., Kalwan through Sahebrao Nimba Pawar and Anr.