52-WP-4507-2024 (CR).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4507 OF 2024 Yogesh Nagnath Pawar ] Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another ] Respondents ..... Mr. Samir Kumbhakoni (through V.C.), for the Petitioner. Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, Addl. P.P, for Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Anvil S. Kalekar, for Respondent No.2. ..… CORAM: SANDESH D. PATIL, J. DATED: 6th AUGUST 2026. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 7th July, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Revision Application No.32 of 2022 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur had upheld the order of rejection of discharge application passed by the learned C.J.J.D, J.M.F.C., Solapur below Exhibit 11 in Regular Criminal Case No.533 of 2016. Shailaja 1 SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Digitally signed by SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2026.08.07 10:44:18 +0530 52-WP-4507-2024 (CR).doc 3. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the CCTV footage seized in the matter does not show the presence of the petitioner. In the alternative, he submits that even assuming the CCTV footage does show the presence of the petitioner, such presence is not at the relevant time when the offence in question is alleged to have been committed. He invited my attention to the observations of the learned Trial Court at page 33. He also invited my attention to the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the Revision Application. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is, in effect, raising a plea of alibi, which cannot be permitted at this stage. 4. Mr. Kumbhakoni submits that the timing reflected in the CCTV footage does not match. He further submits that both the Courts below ought to have considered the timing reflected in the CCTV footage. 5. As on date, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. At this stage, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused and send him for trial. Shailaja 2 52-WP-4507-2024 (CR).doc 6. In my opinion, examination of the evidence before the court is not necessary. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that accused can be sent for trial. The Apex Court in the judgment of State of State of U.P. vs. Udai Narayan1 has considered the scope of discharge. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, there is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. All contentions of the parties are kept open. [SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] 1 1999 AIR (SC) 3845 Shailaja 3