Siraj Salim Sayyed and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2026IA/3509/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No. 1057 of 2024 dismissed for default; recall of order dated 16.07.2025; non-appearance of counsel at call-over; inadvertent bonafide mistake of Advocate's office; APP left matter to Court; restoration in interest of justice; hearing on merits; Interim Application No. 3509 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; decision dated 30th January, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No. 1057 of 2024 to file, by recall of the order dated 16th July, 2025; the petition to be heard on merits. ¶¶24

Siraj Salim Sayyed and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

910-IA-3509-2025.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by GAYATRI GAYATRIRAJENDRASHIMPI RAJENDRASHIMPIDate:2026.01.31 16:16:35 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3509 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1057 OF 2024

¶7

Siraj Salim Sayyed & Anr. … Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Ms. Rekha Gaikwad, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent No. 1 – State. Ms. Dipali Dhalpe – PSI, Vakola Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 30^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

By the present Application, the Applicants have sought

¶12

for the following substantive relief in prayer clause 10 (a):-

¶13

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restore Criminal Writ Petition No. 1057 of 2024 and be heard on merits.”

¶14

Ms. Rekha Gaikwad, learned Advocate for the

Gayatri shimpi

910-IA-3509-2025.doc

Applicants, submits that this Application was dismissed on 16^th July, 2025 in view of the absence of the Advocate for the Applicants when the matter was called out. She submits that it was on account of an inadvertent bonafide mistake on the part of the office of the Advocate representing the Applicants that none appeared before this Court on 16^th July, 2025 . She submits that the Applicants would be denied the opportunity of agitating their case before this Court if the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1057 of 2024 is not restored and the same is not heard on merits. She therefore prays for restoration of the Petition and submits that the Advocate for the Petitioners would appear before this Court as and then when the Petition is listed on board and canvass arguments.

¶19

Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State, submits that as the Advocate for the Petitioner having owned the responsibility for the absence 16^th July, 2025, he leaves the matter to the Court.

¶20

In view of the statements made in the Application and the vehement submissions advanced by Ms. Rekha Gaikwad, in the

Gayatri shimpi

910-IA-3509-2025.doc

interest of justice, this Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Order dated 16^th July, 2025, passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1057 of 2024 is recalled and the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1057 of 2024 is restored to file.

¶25

Interim Application No. 3509 of 2025 is allowed in the

¶26

above said terms.

¶27

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶28

¶29

Gayatri shimpi

Siraj Salim Sayyed and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siraj Salim Sayyed 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

Similar cases

Rajiv Rajendrasingh Pradhan vs the Union Territory of Daman and Diu

Soyab Nayab Shaikh and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raj Chandrakant Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pratik Rajendra Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pritpalsingh Jaswantsingh Ghuman and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pritpalsingh Jaswantsingh Ghuman and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.