Allowed¶5

State of Maharashtra v. Wahhed Khan Dilawar Khan

Bombay HC20 Jan 2025APPP/117/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

recall of order; cancellation of bail allowed; vakalatnama not placed on record; advocate's mistake; applicant/accused cannot be made to suffer; restoration of Criminal Application (APPLN) No. 119 of 2024; State of Maharashtra PS Andhera Tah. Chikhali Dist. Buldhana; Waheed Khan Dilawar Khan; Nagpur Bench; stand over 29.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Recall of the order dated 7th January, 2025 allowing cancellation of bail; Criminal Application (APPLN) No. 119 of 2024 restored to file for hearing (stand over to 29.01.2025). ¶5

State of Maharashtra vs Wahhed Khan Dilawar Khan — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

-1- 18.APPP.117.2025.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-NAG:586-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

C RIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP ) NO. 117 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO. 119 OF 2024 (D) State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Andhera, Tah. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Waheed Khan Dilawar Khan

¶7

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions

¶9

and Registrar's orders

¶10

********************************************************************************************** Mr. Sangram Sirpurkar, Advocate for the Accused. Mr. A.G. Mate, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J. DATED : 20th JANUARY, 2025.

¶12

. This is an application for recall of the order dated 7^th January, 2025, whereby the application made for cancellation of the bail was allowed.

¶13

Learned advocate Mr. Sirpurkar submits that, due to his mistake, the vakalatnama could not be placed on record. It is submitted that, on account of his mistake, the applicant/accused cannot be made to suffer.

¶14

Learned APP submits that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the applicant/accused to hamper the investigation. He did not co-operate the Investigating Officer. There was breach of condition.

¶15

Learned advocate Mr. Sirpurkar has filed his reply and vakalatnama. It appears that the applicant/accused had long back instructed the advocate to appear for him, but the advocate, for the reasons recorded in paragraph 4 of the

¶16

-2- 18.APPP.117.2025.odt

¶17

application, could not file vakalatnama and reply on record. In my view, considering the mistake on the part of the advocate, the applicant/accused cannot be made to suffer.

¶18