Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8911 (BOM)

SYED RAHEMAT SAYED BASHIR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS SONALA TQ. SANGRAMPUR DIST. BULDHANA

APPP/3013/2026 · 2026-09-16

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 22 APPP 3013.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NO. 3013/2026 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 1139/2022 (Sayad Rahemat Sayed Bashir & anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N. G. Tikar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant/State CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 16/09/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking relaxation of condition No.(iv) imposed by this Court vide order dated 10/10/2022 passed in Criminal Application (BA) No.1139/2022, which reads as under:- “(iv) The applicants/accused nos. 8 and 9 shall not enter village Bawanbir, Tah. Sagrampur, Dist. Buldhana.” 3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that since 2022, the applicant has been regularly attending the Court. However, till today, the charges are yet to be framed. He contends that applicants are having agricultural land at village Bawanbir, Tah. Sangrampur, 2 22 APPP 3013.26 Dist. Buldhana and there is no one to look after their land. For nearly 4 years the applicants are not residing in their village and therefore he submits that the condition No. (iv) of order dated 10/10/2022 passed in Criminal Application (BA) No.1139/2022 be relaxed. 4. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the very purpose of imposing condition No.(iv) would be frustrated, if it is relaxed as the trial is yet to begin. He further submits that though the order is passed on 10/10/2022, however, condition No.(iv) cannot be relaxed, since the important witnesses are residing at the village Bawanbir. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the Court has imposed the aforesaid condition for certain purpose, therefore the same can not be relaxed. Therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. Admittedly, the order was passed on 10/10/2022. It appears from the Roznama that the applicants are attending the Court regularly. However, it appears that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants was absent 3 22 APPP 3013.26 on some occasions and some times, even the applicants have remained absent. Whereas, four years has lapsed after passing of the said order, however till today, even the charges are not framed. Therefore, the applicants cannot be kept away from their village for indefinite period due to delay in trial. Under such circumstances, the condition No. (iv) has been relaxed. Hence the following order:- (I) Application is allowed and disposed of. (II) The condition No. (iv) of order dated 10/10/2022 passed in Criminal Application (BA) No.1139/2022 is hereby relaxed. (III) The applicant shall attend each and every date of the trial before the Trial Court. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/09/2026 18:40:28