1 1 appp1174.25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NO.1174 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1095 OF 2024 (D) Satish @ Munna s/o Gayachanran Trivedi Vs. State of Maharashtra and another __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Shri R.A. Singh, Advocate for applicant/orig. Non-applicant no.2. Shri M.J. Khan, APP for non-applicant no.1/ State. Shri A.B. Tikle, Advocate for orig. applicant. CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE : 15.09.2026. 1. By the present application, non-applicant No. 2/complainant is seeking recall of the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 1095/2024, on the ground that non-applicant No. 2 had already engaged an advocate, who had filed his vakalatnama on 25.09.2024. However, his name did not appear in the cause list and, therefore, he could not appear before this Court, resultantly order dated 02.04.2025 has been passed in his absence. 2. It is contended that there is no mistake on the part of non-applicant no.2 as Registry did not publish the name of counsel for the non-applicant no.2 in cause list. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. Upon enquiry with the Registry, it is revealed that vakalatnama came to be filed on 16.04.2025 through e-filing, 2026:BHC-NAG:12206 2 1 appp1174.25.odt which came to be approved by the Criminal Section of this Court on 17.04.2025, whereas, the order in APL No.1095 of 2024 came to be passed on 02.04.2025. It appears from the various minutes of order in APL No.1095 of 2024 that sufficient opportunity was given to non-applicant no.2 to appear in the matter but nobody appeared and therefore, the order came to be passed in absence of non-applicant no.2. Nonetheless, learned APP appearing in the said matter had taken care of the prosecution side. 5. The above material clearly demonstrate the premises on which the application for recalling is filed appears to be an incorrect one and hence, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the application is rejected with costs of 2,000/- ₹ payable by the applicant/original non-applicant no.2 to the Public Welfare Fund account maintained at Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur, within two weeks from today. (M.W. Chandwani, J.) Wagh Signed by: Mr. S.R. Wagh Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 15/09/2026 18:30:50