Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11618 (BOM)

RAMESH NAGNATH KADAM v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

WP/293/2026 · 2026-09-23

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

901-WP-293-2026-(CR).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 293 OF 2026 Ramesh Nagnath Kadam … Petitioner V/s. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents ________________________ Mr. Kalpesh Patil i/b. Mr. Prashant Raul, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganpathy, Addl. PP for respondents-State. _________________________ CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 P.C.: 1. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, seeks liberty to amend the petition by adding the provisions of Section 447 of the BNSS in the cause title and in paragraph 8 and to add one more paragraph after paragraph 8 as paragraph 8A. Learned APP has no objection if amendment is carried out. 2. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 1/4 adn 901-WP-293-2026-(CR).doc 3. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to transfer the case pending before the Sessions Court at Solapur, being Special Case No.81 of 2023, to the Sessions Court at Mumbai, to be heard along with Special Case Nos.104 of 2015 and 108 of 2015. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that various crimes were registered against the petitioner and one more accused at various police stations in the State of Maharashtra. The informant had alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was then the President and Managing Director of “Sahitya Ratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit”. It was alleged that the petitioner had sanctioned various loans and, along with the other co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 109, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 5. The present Writ Petition arises out of C.R. No.373 of 2017 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station. 6. The main FIR was filed with Dahisar Police Station, being FIR No.336 of 2015. 2/4 adn 901-WP-293-2026-(CR).doc 7. The present petitioner had preferred Writ Petition (Criminal) No.245 of 2021 before the Supreme Court of India and, vide order dated 16 September 2021, seven cases out of nine were transferred to the Sessions Court at Mumbai to be heard along with Special Case No.108 of 2015. 8. It is submitted before us that, at the relevant time, as far as Crime No.373 of 2017 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station was concerned, charge-sheet was not filed. Subsequently, in the said crime, a charge-sheet has been filed on 15 April 2023. 9. By the present Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking transfer of the proceedings pending before the Sessions Court at Solapur to the Sessions Court at Mumbai, to be heard along with Special Case No.104 of 2015. It is further submitted that charge has not been framed in Special Case No.81 of 2023 pending before the Sessions Court at Solapur. The petitioner is seeking transfer of the proceedings under the provisions of Section 447 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and we have also gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court passed 3/4 adn 901-WP-293-2026-(CR).doc on 16 September 2021 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.245 of 2021, wherein seven proceedings were transferred to Mumbai to be heard along with Special Case No.108 of 2015. 11. We are convinced that even Special Case No.81 of 2023 pending before the Sessions Court at Solapur needs to be transferred to the Sessions Court at Mumbai. 12. In view of the same, the present Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) 4/4 adn