In a criminal application seeking ad-interim relief, the High Court stayed the trial court proceedings against the petitioner until February 18, 2025, granting it one opportunity.
The trial court shall not proceed against the petitioner until February 18, 2025.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
35-APL-968-24.odt
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.968 OF 2024
Akhilesh Lalbahadur Yadav …..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and another .….Respondents
Mr. Krishnakant Pandey, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Anand S. Shalgaokar, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & DR.NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE : 10th DECEMBER, 2024
P.C. :
1. In this matter, the Respondent No.2 is already served. Today, nobody appears for her. Therefore, to give her one more chance, we are adjourning the matter. However, we have heard learned counsel for the Applicant for ad-interim relief as he submitted that the charge-sheet is already filed and the matter is pending before the trial Court.
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
Digitally signed by PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE Date: 2024.12.13 10:39:54 +0530
2. We have heard learned counsel for the Applicant for consideration of ad-interim relief today. He invited our attention to the FIR which is the subject matter of the Application. He submitted that the Respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, was a married lady. She was staying with her son, aged 11 years, in
1 of 2
Deshmane(PS)
: 2 : 35-APL-968-24.odt the year 2021. The FIR describes many instances when the informant and the Applicant had their physical relations. On some occasions, even the husband of the Respondent No.2 was aware of their friendship. Subsequently on one occasion the informant was told by the Applicant that he was to get married with another lady. Inspite of that the physical relations continued. It is her case that she consented to have physical relations because he had promised to marry her. But the FIR shows that it was a consensual relationship going on since March, 2018 till January, 2024 for almost six years. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the Applicant, no offence is made out.
3. Considering these submissions, the learned counsel
for the Applicant has made out a case for grant of ad-interim relief. Hence, the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
( DR.NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether ad-interim relief should be granted to stay the proceedings against the petitioner pending trial.
Akhilesh Lalbahadur Yadav
The State of Maharashtra
Sarang V. Kotwal
Neela Gokhale
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
