Bombay High Court
TALHA ABBAS MUKHI AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The Court condoned the 223‑day delay, recalled the dismissal, and restored the criminal writ petition, while staying the earlier interim order pending further hearing.
Summary
The petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 3294 of 2025, but failed to submit spare copies of the petition within the two‑week period ordered on 26 June 2025, leading to the petition’s dismissal. They later filed Interim Application No. 1438 of 2026 seeking condonation of a 223‑day delay in filing the application and restoration of the dismissed petition. The Court, noting the advocate’s admission of an inadvertent mistake and the absence of any malafide, applied the guidelines from Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy to condone the delay. Consequently, the dismissal order was recalled and the criminal writ petition was restored to the file. However, the Court clarified that the interim order dated 26 June 2025 would not continue and would be reconsidered after hearing the respondents. The interim application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 223 days in filing an interim application can be condoned under established jurisprudence.
- Whether the dismissal of a criminal writ petition for non‑submission of spare copies is reversible.
- Whether the interim order dated 26 June 2025 remains in force after the petition is restored.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1)
Subjects
- criminal writ petition
- condonation of delay
- procedural compliance
- Section 109
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- interim relief
- restoration of petition
Judgment
502-IA-1438-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1438 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3294 OF 2025
Talha Abbas Mukhi and Anr. … Petitioners/
Applicants
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents
----
Mr. Rahul Arote a/w Ms. Nikita Gawai, for the Applicant.
Ms. Rajeshree Newton, APP for the Respondent – State.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 7th July, 2026.
P.C. :
1. This Application is circulated pursuant to the praecipe dated
07.07.2026, same is marked with ‘X’ for identification. At the
request of Mr. Rahul Arote, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
this Application was ordered to be listed on ‘Production Board’.
2. By the present Application, the Applicants have sought for
the following relief in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) :-
Vivekanand 1
502-IA-1438-2026.doc
“a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay
of 223 days in filing present Application.
b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to restore the Criminal
Writ Petition No. 3294 of 2025 back to the file of this
Hon’ble Court.”
3. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the
Respondent/State, leaves the matter to the Court.
4. On 26.06.2026, the following order was passed :-
“1) Issue notice to the Respondent No. 2, returnable on
th
14 August, 2025.
2) Learned Advocate for Petitioners is directed to supply
spare copies of Petition in the Registry within a period of two
weeks from today, failing which the Petition shall stand
dismissed without further reference to this Court.
3) Perusal of FIR prima facie indicates that, Application
of Section 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to the
present crime, is warranted.
4) Till the returnable date, the investigation of the crime
to continue, however, the Investigating Agency shall not file
charge-sheet without leave of this Court.
5) Stand over to 14th August, 2025.”
5. Due to the Applicants' failure to comply with the direction to
furnish a spare copy, the order dated 26.06.2025, which was self-
operative, took effect upon expiry of two weeks. Consequently, the
Vivekanand 2
502-IA-1438-2026.doc
Petition was dismissed. Apparently, the time limit set for
furnishing the spare copy was in view of the ad-interim order
referred to in para 4 of the order dated 26.06.2025.
6. Mr. Rahul Arote, learned Advocate for the Applicants,
submits that the spare copy was not supplied to the Registry of this
Court within the time due to an inadvertent mistake on the part of
his office. He refers to statements made in paragraph No. 4 of this
Application.
7. Considering that Mr Rahul Arote, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, has accepted responsibility and that there are no
malafides alleged against the Petitioner, I deem it fit and proper to
condone the delay of 223 days in filing this Application by
applying the guidelines in the case of ‘Esha Bhattacharjee v.
Raghunathpur Nafar Academy’.1 The delay is therefore condoned.
8. For the reasons stated above, the order dated 26.06.2025
dismissing Criminal Writ Petition No. 3294 of 2025 is recalled.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3294 of 2025 is restored to file.
1 (2013) 12 SCC 649
Vivekanand 3
502-IA-1438-2026.doc
9. Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the Respondent-
State, submits that the Interim Order, as recorded in paragraph 4
of the order dated 26.06.2025, may not be continued unless and
until Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are heard in the
matter. She justifies the said submission on the ground that the
interim order dated 26.06.2025 was vacated in July 2025.
10. I find substance in the submissions made by Ms. Rajeshree
Newton, learned APP for the Respondent-State. Accordingly, it is
clarified that Criminal Writ Petition No. 3294 of 2025 is restored
by this order. The Interim Order recorded in Paragraph No. 4 of
the order dated 25.06.2025 is not continued and the prayer for
interim reliefs will be considered after hearing Respondent No. 1
and Respondent No. 2.
11. Interim Application No. 1438 of 2026 is allowed on the
above-said terms.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Vivekanand 4
Checking your session…