Allowed¶25

Santosh Raghunath Akhade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2025IA/4946/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim/complainant intervention in bail application; right of audience of victim before Bombay High Court; reliance on Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (2022) 9 SCC 321; Interim Application No. 4946 of 2024 in Criminal Bail Application No. 4432 of 2024; Crime No. 381 of 2021, Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune; belated intervention objection; State did not oppose; intervention allowed; applicant Santosh Raghunath Akhade; single-judge order of Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.

What did the court decide?

Intervener permitted to intervene in Bail Application No. 4432 of 2024; Intervention Application No. 4946 of 2024 allowed in the abovesaid terms. ¶25

Santosh Raghunath Akhade vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

25-FINAL IA-4946-2024.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

Digitally signed GAYATRIRAJENDRASHIMPI by GAYATRIRAJENDRASHIMPIDate:2025.08.20 20:43:09 +0530

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4946 OF 2024 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4432 OF 2024

¶7

Santosh Raghunath Akhade ... Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents

¶10

¶11

Ms. Sana Khan a/w Neha Balani a/w Vidya Lahamate, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶12

Mr. Aniket Nikam i/b Mr. Sumit Patil, Advocate for Intervener. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for Respondent/State.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 18^th AUGUST, 2025.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Mr. Aniket Nikam, learned Advocate for the Intervener, Ms. Sana Khan, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned APP for the State.

¶17

By the present Application, the Applicant is seeking Intervention in Bail Application No.4432 of 2024. Intervener is the Original Complainant in Crime No.381 of 2021.

¶18

Ms. Sana Khan, learned Advocate for the Applicant, opposes the Intervention Application on the ground that the present Intervention Application has been filed after several dates of hearing in the Bail Application and subsequent to the filling of the affidavit-in-reply by the State. She submits that the presence of the Intervener is not required in the present Bail Application.

¶19

¶20

Gayatri Shimpi

¶21

25-FINAL IA-4946-2024.odt

¶22

Mr. Aniket Nikam, learned Advocate for Intervener, submits that the Applicant is the Complainant as also the victim, as such, the Intervener would have a right of audience in the present Application.

¶23

Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned APP for the State does not object to the intervention on behalf of the Intervener.

¶24

Intervener being the Complainant / victim is not disputed by Ms. Sana Khan. Considering the statements made in the Intervention Application, the Intervener being the Original Complainant who had lodged the complaint, which culminated in the registration of Crime No.381 of 2021 with Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh Vs. Ashish Mishra¹ , Interim Application is allowed and Intervener is permitted to intervene in the Bail Application No. 4432 of 2024.

¶25

Intervention Application No.4946 of 2024 is allowed in the abovesaid terms.

¶26

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶27

1 (2022) 9 SCC 321

¶28

¶29

Gayatri Shimpi

Santosh Raghunath Akhade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Raghunath Akhade v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Balu Rambhau @ Ramji Ubale vs the State of Maharashtra

Shauba Bapu Khandekar vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayman @ Papa Patric Manwel vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangesh Baburao Savkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yogesh Madhukar Nikam vs State of Maharashtra

Govind Ramesh Kakade vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.