Allowed

Nitin Jiyalal Rajak and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Mar 2026IA/924/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recall of order; dismissal for non-prosecution; restoration of writ petition to file; condonation of delay; bonafide mistake of advocate; no objection by State APP and Respondent No. 2; Bombay High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; Criminal Writ Petition No. 2426 of 2023; Interim Application No. 924 of 2026; order dated 18 July 2023 recalled.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the recall Application condoned; order dated 18 July 2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2426 of 2023 recalled; Writ Petition No. 2426 of 2023 restored to file.

Nitin Jiyalal Rajak and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2026.03.18 21:30:45 +0530

¶2

(920) IA-924.26.DOCX

¶3

lgc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.924 OF 2026 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2426 OF 2023

¶7

Nitin Jiyalal Rajak & ors. : Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents.

¶8

Ms. Aafreen Shaikh i/by Adv. Shivam Srivastav for the Applicants.

¶9

Mrs. P. P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent/State.

¶10

Mr. Rakesh D Ghatekari i/by Adv. Pipli Datta for the Respondent No.2.

¶11

PSI Shivaji Bhoge, PSI Sunil Parab, Shivaji Park Police Station present.

¶12

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

¶13

DATED : 18 MARCH 2026

¶14

PC:-

¶15

By the present Application, the Applicants have sought for recall of the order dated 18 July 2023 and seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Application for recall.

¶16

By order dated 18 July 2023 the following order was passed in Criminal Writ Petition No2426 of 2023:-

¶17

“1. Despite circulating the Petition by Advocate for Petitioners, none appears for

¶18

¶19

(920) IA-924.26.DOCX

¶20

them when the Petition is called out for hearing.

¶21

Petition is dismissed for nonprosecution.”

¶22

Ms. Aafreen Shaikh, learned Advocate for the Applicants, by referring to the Application seeking recall, submits that it was on account of a bonafide mistake on the part of the Advocate appearing for the Petitioners that Writ Petition No.2426 of 2023 came to be dismissed for nonprosecution. She submits that for a mistake of an Advocate, the Petitioners should not be denied an opportunity of canvassing their case on merits.

¶23

Mrs. P P Bhosale, learned APP for the Respondent/State and Mr. Rakesh Ghatekari, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 do not object to the request for recall of the order and restoration of the Writ Petition No.2426 of 2023.

¶24

In view of the statements made in the Application, submissions of Ms. Aafreen Shaikh and no objection given by Mrs. P P Bhosale, learned APP for the Respondent/State and Mr. Rakesh Ghatekari, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, this Application is allowed. The delay is condoned and the order dated 18 July 2023 passed in Writ Petition No2426 of 2023 is recalled.

¶25

The Writ Petition No.2426 of 2023 is restored to file.

¶26

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶27

Nitin Jiyalal Rajak and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Jiyalal Rajak and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases