Disposed¶25

Vipin Ishwarlal Bora v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2026WP/4517/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Shivkumar Dige, J., 27-03-2026; WP 4517/2024 (Vipin Ishwarlal Bora v. State of Maharashtra and anr.) with Criminal Application 66/2025 (Preeti Vipin Bora). Matrimonial dispute; husband restrained by Trial Court from visiting wife's residence at 1301-A Palladium Society, Kothrud, Pune; offence registered 2021, no trial progress; Court requested Trial Court to expedite trial; writ petition and bail-cancellation application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court requested to expedite the trial and dispose of it as early as possible; writ petition and Criminal Application No. 66 of 2025 (bail cancellation) disposed of accordingly. ¶25

Vipin Ishwarlal Bora vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Trial Court requested to expedite the trial and dispose of it as early as possible; writ petition and Criminal Application No. 66 of 2025 (bail cancellation) disposed of accordingly.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-husband should be permitted to visit the Palladium Society, near Big Bazaar, Kothrud, Pune, notwithstanding the Trial Court's restraint on visiting respondent No.1's residence at 1301-A therein. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

On the strength of the expedition direction, the writ petition stands disposed of (the operative order grants no visitation relief).

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Observing that the matter is a dispute between husband and wife and that the offence registered in 2021 had seen no progress in the trial, the Court requested the Trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of it as early as possible.

¶24

Key takeaways

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, Criminal Application No. 66 of 2025 (for cancellation of bail) also stands disposed of.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Shivkumar Dige, J.; 27 March 2026) — Writ Petition No. 4517 of 2024 (Vipin Ishwarlal Bora v. The State of Maharashtra and anr.) with Criminal Application No. 66 of 2025 (Preeti Vipin Bora v. The State of Maharashtra and anr.). The petitioner-husband, out of his house for five years, challenged a Trial Court direction restraining him from visiting the residence of respondent No.1 at 1301-A, Palladium Society, near Big Bazaar, Kothrud, Pune; his counsel alternatively sought expedition of the trial, to which the wife's counsel raised no objection. Noting the dispute was between husband and wife and that the offence registered in 2021 had seen no progress in the trial, the Court requested the Trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of it as early as possible and disposed of the writ petition; consequently, the wife's Criminal Application No. 66 of 2025 for cancellation of bail also stood disposed of.

¶1

112-WP-4517-2024 (CR).doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4517 OF 2024 Vipin Ishwarlal Bora

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 66 OF 2025

¶9

Preeti Vipin Bora

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

The State of Maharashtra and anr.

¶12

Mr. Sumit Kothari along with Mr. Rajendra Gurjar, Advocate for Petitionerhusband in WP/4517/2024 and Respondent No.2 in APL/66/2025. Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No.1-State.

¶13

Mr. H. M. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in WP/4517/2024 and Applicant in APL/66/2025.

¶14

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 27^th MARCH, 2026.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-husband is out of his house for five years. He wants to visit the Palladium Society in front of Big Bazaar, Kothrud, Pune but the Trial Court has directed not to visit the residence of respondent No.1 at 1301-A in Palladium Society. If this Court directs, the Trial Court to expedite the trial, this Court may dispose of the writ petition.

¶17

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.04.02 12:56:09 +0530

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has other two residences but only to harass respondent No.2-wife, he

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

112-WP-4517-2024 (CR).doc

¶21

Shubhada S Kadam

¶22

petitioner wants to visit the said society. Respondent No.2-wife has filed complaint against the petitioner-husband as he forcibly tried to visit the said society. If this Court expedites the Trial, respondent No.2-wife has no object for it.

¶23

Learned APP submits this appropriate orders be passed.

¶24

Considering the submission of all learned counsel, it appears that it is a dispute between husband and wife. The offence was registered in 2021, since then, there is no progress in the trial. Considering this fact, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the Trial and dispose the same as early as possible.

¶25

In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

In view of disposal of writ petition, criminal application No.66

¶27

of 2025 (for cancellation of bail) also stands disposed of.

¶28

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Vipin Ishwarlal Bora v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Ishwarlal Bora 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pramod Ankush Pawar @ Mangesh @ Pappu Arun Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Gaurav Keshav Ingole vs State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Bhikanrao Chavan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

National Spot Exchange Ltd. vs The Central Bureau of Investigation Bank Securities and Fraud Cell

Sagar Vijay Orase vs the State of Maharashtra

Umesh Gopinath Bhavar vs the State of Maharashtra