Allowed

Javed Iqbal Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Dec 2024WP/4656/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An undertrial charged under IPC and POCSO provisions, in custody for over four years with no progress after charge framing, sought expedition of his trial. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Special Court to expedite the case, and to provide the chargesheet copy or legal aid counsel.

What did the court decide?

Special Court directed to expedite Special Case No. 190 of 2020; chargesheet copy to petitioner/advocate; legal aid counsel if unrepresented.

Javed Iqbal Ansari vs State of Maharashtra — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

9-WP-4656-2024.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4656 OF 2024

¶6

Javed Iqbal Ansari … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Prathmesh P. Bhosle, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for Respondent – State.

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATED : 2^nd DECEMBER, 2024.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for expedite the trial pending before the learned Sessions Court at Dindoshi, Mumbai.

¶11

It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has charged under Section 376(2)(f)(n), 376(3) and 506(II) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and under Section 6 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “POCSO”) which is pending before the Special Court, Dindoshi. The petitioner is behind bar since more than four years and there is no progress in the trial. The petitioner’s bail application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.05.2021. The charge has been framed against the petitioner on 15.07.2024, since then there is no progress in the trial, hence requested to allow the petition.

1/2

9-WP-4656-2024.doc

S.S.Kilaje

Learned APP strongly objected to allow the petition.

¶16

I have heard both the learned counsel. The Petitioner is behind

¶17

bar more than 4 years. The charge is framed in July, 2023 since last one year and 4 months there is no progress in the trial. Considering these facts, I pass following order.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶20

(ii) Learned Special Court is directed to expedite the Special Case No. 190 of 2020 as early as possible.

¶21

(iii) Chargesheet copy be given to the petitioner or his Advocate who is representing the petitioner before the Special Court. If none appears for the petitioner, learned Special Court shall appoint Advocate from the legal aid panel to represent him.

¶22

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2024.12.04 KILAJE 14:12:53 +0700

¶23

( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶24

2/2

Javed Iqbal Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Iqbal Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Controller,Pune vs Uttam Anna Bankar and Anr.

Mrs. Indira Bharat Rajepandhare vs Mr. Ashok Sharanappa Athanikar and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.Divisional Controller, Pune Vs Kalpana Satyawan Gholap and Anr.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Its General Manager vs Mr. Shravankumar Alias Pappu Ramlularak Dubey and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mangesh Manohar Vaidya and Ors.

Magma Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ranjitbhai Amrutbhai Patel and Ors.