Allowed¶19

Rakesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Bombay HC4 May 2026WP/192/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 CrPC; witness summons; prosecution witness; G. A. Suriya Kumar; CBI; Special Court CBI Nagpur; Special CBI Case No. 2/2016; Exh. 410; natural justice; opportunity of hearing; say of accused; cryptic/unreasoned order; quashed and set aside; Criminal Writ Petition No. 192/2026; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; M. M. Nerlikar, J.; decision dated 04/05/2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02/02/2026 passed below Exh. 410 in Special CBI Case No. 2/2016 quashed and set aside; petitioner given opportunity to file say within eight days; Trial Court to hear the petitioner and pass a brief reasoned order. ¶19

Rakesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Sharma vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 7 wp 192.26

¶2

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

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 192/2026

¶4

(Rakesh Kumar S/o. Omprakash Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation)

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

Mr. P. Naidu, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P. K. Sathianathan, Advocate for respondent.

¶8

CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J .

¶9

DATED : 04/05/2026.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The respondent herein had filed an application under section 311 of of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”) in the Trial Court to call G. A. Suriya Kumar, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB Branch, Chennai as a prosecution witness and for issuing summons to him. The said application was allowed by the Special Court, CBI Nagpur observing that, “issue witness summons as prayed”. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not present and behind his back, application was filed by the CBI and the order was passed by allowing the application. He submits that it is a gross violation of principle of natural justice which would cause

¶13

2 7 wp 192.26

¶14

prejudice to him. He submits that the evidence is already over and after closing of the evidence, the order of issuance of summons was passed, therefore he submits that the order be set aside by remanding back the matter to be heard afresh after giving him an opportunity.

¶15

On the other hand, Mr. Sathenathan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. The power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage of the trial. He submits that for making a just decision, the application was moved and it was not moved to fill up the lacuna, therefore the learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Trial Court was in the interest of justice and it is essential to have a just decision in the case, therefore he submits that no interference is required at the hands of this Court.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the application filed by the respondent herein. It appears from the record that neither the say of the petitioner was called by the Court nor there are brief

¶17

3 7 wp 192.26

¶18

reasons in the impugned order. Prima facie, it appears to me that unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner, the order could not have been passed. Further, the order is cryptic as no reasons are given for allowing the application. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to allow the petition with a direction to the Trial Court to call the say of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, a brief reasoned order be passed.

¶19

Accordingly, impugned order dated 02/02/2026 passed below Exh. 410 in Special CBI Case No. 2/2016 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner be given opportunity to file say. Say shall be filed within eight days. In case the petitioner fails to file say, the Trial Court is at liberty to proceed further. With these observation the petition is disposed of.

¶20

( M. M. NERLIKAR, J.)

¶21

Gohane

¶22

Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 04/05/2026 18:09:57

Rakesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Sharma v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Samadhan Uttam Joshi vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. D.G.P., Buldhana, for Pso, Amdapur, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana

Shriram Gulabrao Khond and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Shegaon City Ps , Tq. Shegaon Dist. Buldhana

Roza Pramod Ramteke ( in Jail) vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Aheri, Tq. Aheri Dist. Gadchiroli

Sanjay Santosh Kalra vs Paras Kamubhai Shekhaliya

Farzana Urf Anjum Ansar Qureshi vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Kalmana

Jatin S/O Jagmohandas Doshi vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Barshitakli, Dist. Akola