Disposed

Mubshir@ Jafar Mujfar Ahamad v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2024BA/2817/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application was withdrawn after submissions. The Court noted the applicant arrested on the FIR date in September 2020 with trial yet to commence despite chargesheet filed in November 2020. It directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and complete the trial within one year, reserving liberty to reapply for bail if delayed without fault of the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed as withdrawn; direction to complete trial within one year; liberty reserved to apply afresh for bail if trial not completed timely through no fault of applicant.

Mubshir@ Jafar Mujfar Ahamad vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

917.BA.2817.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2817 OF 2024

¶4

Mubshir @ Jafar Mujfar Ahamad

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

¶10

Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Rahul Tripathi and Mr. Vishal Sheth, for Applicant.

¶11

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶12

Digitally signed bySHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2024.12.06 10:27:02 +0530

¶13

 Mr. Balraj B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent No.1.

¶14

 Ms. Pooja S. Agarwal, for Respondent No.2. (appointed through Legal Aid)

¶15

¶16

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

¶17

DATE : 05^th DECEMBER, 2024.

¶18

P. C. :

¶19

Heard, learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for

¶20

respondent – State and the learned counsel appointed to appear on behalf of the victim.

¶21

After having made submissions for some time, on instructions,

¶22

the learned counsel appearing for the applicant sought permission to withdraw the application, but, at the same time, it was highlighted that although the applicant was arrested as far back as on 06^th September, 2020, the trial has not even commenced and in that context, this Court may consider issuing appropriate directions.

¶23

In view of the above, the application is disposed of as withdrawn. However, this Court finds that although the applicant was arrested on 06^th

Page1 of 2

Shrikant Malani

917.BA.2817.2024.doc

September, 2020 i.e. the date on which the FIR was registered and chargesheet was also filed as far back as on 01^st November, 2020, the charges appear to have been framed recently and the trial has not commenced.

¶28

The list of witnesses shown in the charge-sheet indicates that the prosecution would be examining 15 witnesses. In practical terms it is seen that fewer witnesses are examined, thereby indicating that the trial can be expeditiously completed.

¶29

In view of the above, the concerned Court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and to make an endeavour to complete the trial within one year from today.

¶30

If the trial is not completed within the said period of time and the delay is not attributable to the applicant, liberty is reserved for the applicant to apply afresh for bail.

¶31

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶32

Page2 of 2

¶33

Shrikant Malani

Mubshir@ Jafar Mujfar Ahamad v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubshir@ Jafar Mujfar Ahamad v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Balasaheb Narayan Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Balbhim Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra

Suvarna Changonda Teli and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikas Seth Trading as Lord Residency Manali

Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Private Ltd. vs Urban Infrastructure Trustees Limited

Marvel Sigma Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs Sanjay Jasubhai Desai and Ors.