Allowed¶24

Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 May 2025APPLN/1075/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:13135-DB), Per Court (Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ.), 02-05-2025, Criminal Application No. 1075 of 2025 in APEALST/2884/2025 with connected Criminal Application No. 1055 of 2025 in APEALST/2839/2025: delay of one year nine days in filing appeals against rejection of bail in Special Case No.58 of 2023 condoned; Court followed Faizal Hasamali Mirza, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1936, on reading down Section 21(5) second proviso of the NIA Act; applicants were in jail; appeals directed to be registered.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of one year nine days in filing the appeals; appeals directed to be registered ¶24

Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:13135-DB

¶2

909-CrAn-1075-25.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1075 OF 2025 IN APEALST/2884/2025

¶6

SAYYAD FAISAL SAYYAD KHALEEL AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1055 OF 2025 IN APEALST/2839/2025

¶9

SHAIKH IRFAN SHAIKH SALIM @ IRFAN MILLI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶10

Advocates for Applicants : Mr. Javed R. Shaikh h/f. Mr. Shaikh Nasimoddin Rafiyoddin and Mr. Faisal N. Shaikh

¶11

Addl.PP for Respondent : Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar

¶12

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 02-05-2025

¶14

PER COURT:-

¶15

Heard learned Advocates for the applicants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶16

Applicants’ prayer for bail made in Special Case No.58 of 2023 is rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. Applicants have preferred appeal against the said order. There is delay of one year nine days in filing the appeals. By these applications, applicants pray for condonation of said delay.

¶17

909-CrAn-1075-25.odt

¶18

¶19

The reason assigned by the applicants for condonation of delay is that since they are in jail they could not prefer appeals within the period of limitation prescribed under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, “ NIA Act ”). By relying on the decision of Division Bench in Faizal Hasamali Mirza versus State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1936 , rendered at Principal Seat, learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the delay deserves to be condoned.

¶20

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the applications contending that there are divergent views taken by various High Courts in respect of interpretation of Section 21 of the NIA Act which prescribes outer limitation of 90 days for preferring appeal and mandates that appeal filed beyond period of limitation of 90 days, shall not be entertained. She further submits that this issue is pending before the Apex Court and the matter is kept on 06.05.2025.

¶21

5. In Faizal Hasamali Mirza (supra), this Court has held that;

¶22

“63. Having regard to the discussions as stated aforesaid, we are firmly of the opinion that the 2^nd proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the NIA Act, will have to be read down, so as to read ‘shall’ as ‘may’, and as such directory, so as to vest discretion in the Appellate Court, to condone delay, beyond the 90 days period on sufficient cause being shown. If the provision were to be held mandatory, despite sufficient cause being shown by accused, the doors of justice will be shut, leading to travesty of justice, which cannot be permitted by Courts of Law.”

¶23

3 909-CrAn-1075-25.odt

¶24

In the light of aforesaid observations and considering the fact that the applicants are in jail, the applications are allowed by condoning the delay. Appeals be registered.

¶25

[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI] JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

rrd

Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharma Pratap Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Jagannath Mehta vs Leena Rameh Mehta and Ors.

Santosh Babruvan Gorad vs Prakash Babasaheb Pande

Amer Pasha Abdul Quadar Sayyed and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Salim Alias Irfan Milli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jayawant Pundlik Patil and Anr. Vs District Collector Jalgaon and Ors.