Amol Narayan Shinde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2025IA/672/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

I.A. 2444/2025; I.A. 672/2025; Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025; Bombay High Court; separate appeal; permission; change of advocate; vakilpatra; NOC; Dilip Vitthal Kamble; Amol Narayan Shinde; Sessions Case No. 182 of 2015; Additional Sessions Judge Pune; suspension of sentence; cause title amendment; Sarang V. Kotwal; Shyam C. Chandak; 17 July 2025; 19.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission to Appellant No.1 (Dilip Vitthal Kamble) to file a separate appeal and pursue his remedy through a different advocate, with consequential deletion of his name from the cause title of Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025 and from I.A. No. 672 of 2025 (amendments within three weeks); I.A. No. 672 of 2025 listed for further consideration on 19.08.2025. ¶¶36

Amol Narayan Shinde and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether Appellant No.1 (original Accused No.1), one of the six appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025, should be permitted to file a separate appeal and pursue his remedy through a different advocate on account of change of advocate.

¶¶25

Court's answer

Permission granted to Appellant No.1 to have his appeal separated and to pursue his remedy through a different advocate.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

The Appeal of Appellant No.1 is permitted to be separated.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

Appellant No.1 shall file a separate Appeal memo; since the original Appeal was already admitted, no further order of admission of his separate Appeal is necessary.ratio¶¶29
Filing of the certified copy is dispensed with.ratio¶¶30
Cause title of Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025 to be modified by deleting the name of Appellant No.1 from the array of Appellants; amendment to be carried out within three weeks.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sarang V. Kotwal & Shyam C. Chandak, JJ.), 17 July 2025 — In I.A. No. 2444 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025, Appellant No.1 (Dilip Vitthal Kamble), one of six appellants (original Accused Nos. 1,2,4,5,7 and 8) convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2015, applied for permission to file a separate appeal owing to change of advocate; the Advocate on record had filed his vakilpatra after obtaining NOC from the earlier advocate. The Court permitted separation of his appeal, held that no fresh admission was necessary as the original appeal stood admitted, directed filing of a separate appeal memo, dispensed with filing of the certified copy, ordered deletion of Appellant No.1's name from the cause title of Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025 (amendment within three weeks) and from I.A. No. 672 of 2025 (suspension of sentence application), listed I.A. No. 672 of 2025 for further consideration on 19.08.2025, and disposed of I.A. No. 2444 of 2025.

2-ia-2444-25+

1 of 3

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2444 OF 2025

¶6

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2025

¶8

Dilip Vitthal Kamble ..Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶11

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 672 OF 2025 IN

¶12

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2025

¶13

Amol Narayan Shinde & Ors. ..Applicants Versus

¶14

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents

¶15

Mr. Aniket Vagal for Applicant in I.A./2444/2025. Ms. Kranti T. Hiwrale, APP for State/Respondent.

¶16

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 17 JULY 2025

¶18

PC :

¶19

This is an application for permission to file separate

¶20

Appeal because of change of Advocate. The original Criminal

¶21

Appeal No.31 of 2025 was filed by the six Appellants who were the

¶22

original Accused Nos.1,2,4,5,7 and 8. All the six accused were

¶23

Digitally signed byVINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2025.07.18 15:28:57 +0530

¶24

2 of 3 2-ia-2444-25+

¶25

convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.182 of 2015. The present application is filed by the Appellant No.1 who was the original Accused No.1 before the Trial Court. Now he wants to change his advocate. The Advocate on record has filed his vakilpatra after obtaining NOC from the earlier advocate. The said vakilpatra is filed in this application. Since the Accused No.1/Appellant No.1 wants his appeal to be argued separately, permission can be granted to him to pursue his remedy through different advocate.

¶26

Hence, the following order:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

i) The Appeal of the Appellant No.1 is permitted to be separated.

¶29

ii) He shall file a separate Appeal memo. Since the original Appeal was already admitted, no further order of admission of his separate Appeal is necessary, but he will have to file separate Appeal memo.

¶30

iii) Filing of the certified copy is dispensed with.

¶31

3 of 3 2-ia-2444-25+

¶32

iv) The cause title of the Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2025 shall accordingly be modified by deleting the name of the Appellant No.1 from the array of Appellants in that Appeal.

¶33

v) Learned counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2025 shall carry out the amendment to that effect within a period of three weeks from today.

¶34

vi) Similarly, the amendment shall be carried out in I.A.No.672 of 2025 by deleting the name of the Appellant No.1 from that application which is filed for suspension of sentence.

¶35

vii) The I.A.No.672 of 2025 shall be listed for further consideration on 19.08.2025.

¶36

viii) The Interim Application No. 2444 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶37

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

¶38

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Amol Narayan Shinde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Narayan Shinde and Anr. v. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akshay Jitendra Kumar Shukla and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Yadav @ Kaindi Ramsahay Yadav vs State of Maharashtra

Nitesh Bholenath Mhatre vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar Pradeep Oak vs State of Maharashtra

Abdul Munaf Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashokkumar Upendrakumar Singh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.