1 24.revn.06.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.06 OF 2026 Madhukar Bapurao Mohite .Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Navi Mumbai and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. Dhruv Sirpurkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. P.K. Sathianathan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr. U. Phasate, Advocate for respondent No.10. Mr. R.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2(A). CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 01/10/2026 1. The petition challenges the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal thereby rejecting the application filed by the applicant, whereby the applicant has prayed that the respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 be added are an accused in the chargesheet filed by the CBI. The applicant has also prayed for the addition of Section 302 of the IPC in the chargesheet. 2. At the outset, Mr. Dhruv Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the primary ground for challenge is that the applicant was not granted any opportunity of hearing on the application filed by him. The investigation in the present crime was handed over to CBI as the state police had earlier filed a closure report. The CBI after conducting an investigation, had filed a chargesheet under Section 304 Part-II. However, the respondent Nos.7 2026:BHC-NAG:13165 2 24.revn.06.2026.odt to 10 were not added as an accused. The application was thus filed by the applicant/complainant to array the respondents Nos.7 to 10 as an accused and also praying for addition of charge under Section 302 of the IPC. However, the same came to be rejected without hearing the applicant. 3. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel further relied upon the Roznama specifically records that order was already passed below Exh.55. After the order was passed, applicant and his counsel were present before the Court. The impugned order dated 19.03.2025 was thus passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The impugned order is bad in law and therefore needs to be quashed and set aside. 4. As against this, Mr. Bhandarkar and Mr. Fasate, learned counsel who appear for the contesting respondents Nos.7 and 10 strongly opposed the present application on the ground that the applicant was having ample opportunities to work out his application. However, the application was pending for months together and the said application was not worked out. In the absence of the applicant or the counsel, the learned trial Court has applied its mind to the fact that there is another stage for addition of accused i.e. under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the evidence of the prosecution is commenced. The said application therefore was rightly rejected after application of mind to the evidence collected by the prosecution. The impugned order does not call for any interference of this Court. The 3 24.revn.06.2026.odt revision application is therefore devoid of substance and merit and is thus liable to be rejected. 5. I have gone through the impugned order dated 19.03.2025. I have also gone through the Roznama dated 19.03.2025 placed on record. The perusal of the Roznama shows that the matter was fixed for hearing on Exh.55 application on 28.01.2025 and next date was fixed as 19.03.2025.. The application Exh.55 was pending. The arguments of learned counsel on behalf of accused on Exh.55 were heard. However, the applicant and his counsel was not present and the order below Exh.55 came to be passed in the absence of the applicant or his counsel. It is noted in the Roznama dated 19.03.2025 that the counsel for the applicant/complainant had remained present only after passing of the order below Exh.55. There appears to be no note taken thereafter whether the applicant or his counsel were heard or not. Thus, prima facie it appears that the applicant was not heard before passing the final order below Exh.55. 6. The impugned order dated 19.03.2025 though specifically observed that the points raised in the application could be raised at the stage of framing of the charge or even at any time if the evidence is led by the prosecution. Since the application was decided without hearing of the applicant or his counsel, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the applicant to work out the application. 7. Thus, the impugned order as well as the Roznama dated 19.03.2025, clearly shows an error 4 24.revn.06.2026.odt committed on the part of the learned trial Court in deciding the application in the absence of the applicant or the counsel. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order:- ORDER (a) The impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, is hereby quashed and set aside. (b) The applicant is directed to remain present before the trial Court on 12.10.2026. (c) The applicant shall be granted an opportunity of hearing on the application at Exh.55. Failure on the part of the applicant/complainant to remain present before the learned trial Court on 12.10.2026 shall entitle the trial Court to draw adverse inference against the applicant and pass appropriate orders. (d) Needless to mention that, this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the order dated 19.03.2025 and that the application is allowed only on the ground of denial of an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. (e) The learned trial Court shall make an endevour to decide the application afresh without getting influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order, 5 24.revn.06.2026.odt expeditiously and not beyond a period of one month from 12.10.2026. (f) Liberty is granted to the respondent Nos.7 to 10 in the present application to participate in the hearing which is now scheduled on 12.10.2026. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 18:24:31