Bombay High Court

ADITYA UDDHAV THAKREYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided: 2 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court ordered the CBI to take over the investigation, register an FIR, and conduct a substantive inquiry under the BNSS, disposing of the petition.

Summary

Satish Salian filed a criminal writ petition alleging that his daughter's death, officially recorded as a suicide, was the result of a conspiracy involving powerful persons and that the police investigation under Section 174 of the CrPC was inadequate. He sought the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), registration of an FIR, and a thorough inquiry under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court examined the scope of Section 174, noted numerous discrepancies in the police reports, spot panchnama, post‑mortem findings, and the handling of evidence, and concluded that the existing investigation could not satisfy the requirements of a cognizable offence investigation. The Court held that the petitioner had no effective alternative remedy before a magistrate and that the magistrate could not direct the CBI. Consequently, the Court ordered the CBI to take over the case, register an FIR, and conduct a substantive investigation, while disposing of the petition and related interim applications.

Issues considered

The adequacy of investigation conducted under Section 174 of the CrPC for a death alleged to involve a cognizable offence.
Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy before a magistrate for directing a fresh investigation.
Whether a High Court can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation and register an FIR.
Whether the magistrate has the power to order investigation by the CBI under the BNSS.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 173, 176
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 154, 170, 173, 174, 175, 176

Subjects

CBI investigation
Section 174 CrPC
FIR registration
suspicious death
transfer of investigation
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
high court order
criminal procedure
inquest
magistrate jurisdiction

Judgment

:1: 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1612 OF 2025

Satish Salian ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra
and others ….Respondents
…..
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION [STAMP] NO.8109 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1612 OF 2025
…..
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2390 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1612 OF 2025
…..
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2393 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1612 OF 2025
…..
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2391 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1612 OF 2025

__________
Mr. Nilesh Ojha, Advocate a/w. Abhishek Mishra, Vijay Kurle,
Shivchand Mishra, Ms. Ishwarlal Agarwal, Ms. Tanveer Nizam, Ms.
Dipali Ojha, Ms. Anushka Sonawane, Devkrishna Bhambri, Shivam
Gupta, Ayush Tiwari, Ms. Sonal Manchekar, Sagar Ugale, Ms. Payal
Padwale, Vikas Pawar, Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Ms. Dipeeka Patil,
Ranjeet Yadav, Jairam Yadav, Sumer Singh, Pratik Sarkar, Bhagwan
Kasture, Rahul Yadav, Jayendra Manchekar, Ms. Meena Thakur,
Ravi Jadhav for the Petitioner in WP/1612/2024 and for the
Applicant in IA(ST)/8109/2025, IA/2390/2025 & IA/2393/2025.
1 of 44

Deshmane(PS)
:2: 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

Mr. Shishir Hiray, Public Prosecutor a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Shinde, APP
a/w. Shubham Joshi, Ankit Patil, Devavrat Hiray, Sanjay Kokne,
Krishna Jaiwar, Ms. Aruna Borkar for the Respondent – State.

Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate i/b. Rahul Arote a/w. Uttam
Singh Rathore, Shubham Gharbudve, Rajan Gurnani for the
Applicant in IA/2391/2025 (intervener in WP/1612/2025).

Mr. Kuldeep Patil, Advocate a/w. Ms Saili Dhuru, Digvijay Kachare,
Anay Joshi, Ms. Yukta Sawant, Ms. Sanika Joshi, Sumitkumar
Nimbalkar for the Respondent No.7 CBI in WP/1612/2025.

Ms. Harpreet Mansukhani Saigal, Intervener in-person in
WP/1612/2025 & Applicant in IA/2392/2025.

Ms. Uma Nemlekar, Advocate i/b. Rizwan Merchant & Associates
for the Respondent No.9.
__________

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 28th AUGUST, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

ORDER: [PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]

1. Heard Mr. Nilesh Ojha, learned counsel for the

Petitioner, Mr. Shishir Hiray, learned Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent – State, Mr. Kuldeep Patil, learned counsel for the

Respondent No.7 CBI, Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, learned Senior Counsel

for the Applicant in IA/2391/2025, Ms. Harpreet Mansukhani

2 of 44
:3: 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

Saigal, the Applicant/intervener appearing in-person in

IA/2392/2025 and Ms. Uma Nemlekar, learned counsel for the

Respondent No.9.

2. This Petition is filed with many prayers. There are

other Interim Applications in this Writ Petition. However, after

hearing the parties we find that the most important prayer in this

Petition and all the Interim Applications is prayer clause (d) of this

Petition, which reads as follows :

“(d) Transfer of Investigation to CBI & Supervision by This
Hon’ble Court: – Direct the State of Maharashtra to hand
over the entire investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) and further direct that the CBI to
appoint an officer not below the rank of Inspector General
of Police (IGP) to lead the investigation under the direct
supervision of this Hon’ble Court to ensure impartiality,
transparency, and adherence to due process.”

3. We have considered the entire scope of this Petition for

consideration of this particular prayer. After considering the

arguments advanced before us and the material placed before us,

we considered whether the relief can be granted to the Petitioner

in respect of the said prayer clause (d) of the Petition. Therefore,

we are only considering the prayer clause (d) of this Petition.
3 of 44
:4: 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

4. The Petitioner is an unfortunate father of a young

daughter who lost her life in tragic circumstances. It is the case of

the Petitioner that she lost life in the suspicious circumstances and,

therefore, this Petition is filed.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI OJHA ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONER :

5. In the background of the case, learned Counsel Shri

Ojha appearing for the Petitioner submitted that it is not a case of

accidental death or a simple case of suicide, but, the death of the

Petitioner’s daughter is the outcome of a deep rooted conspiracy

involving powerful people.

6. After serious consideration to the arguments and the

material, we are of the opinion that the matter requires

investigation; and hence we are not making any observations

regarding the allegations made by the Petitioner. The police have,

of course, conducted the investigation; but that investigation is

under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The other relevant procedure is prescribed under

Sections 175 and 176 of Cr.P.C.. For the reasons recorded

hereinafter, we are of the opinion that in this particular case the

4 of 44
:5: 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

said procedure is inadequate. The case requires substantive

investigation of a cognizable offence. The procedure was provided

under Cr.P.C. (as it was in operation at the relevant time) starting

from Section 154 onwards till filing of the Police Report on

completion of investigation under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.. Now, of

course, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short,

‘BNSS’) is in operation and, therefore, the substantive investigation

would be under Section 173 onwards of BNSS. Now the procedure

for investigation is provided under Section 176 onwards of BNSS

for investigation of cognizable offences.

7. Since we are taking a view that the matter requires

investigation, we are not making any observations which would

directly or indirectly affect the investigating agency in conducting

thorough investigation.

8. For the same reason, we are not making any

observations against any individual. We are referring to the facts

and circumstances only to the extent which is necessary for

deciding this issue.

9. Keeping in line with our approach, we are not referring

to the allegations made by the Petitioner in detail against some
5 of 44
:6: 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

individuals. Very briefly, the gist of the allegations is that the

Petitioner’s daughter was working with Sushant Singh Rajput. She

got to know about some objectionable activities of the powerful

people. She gave that information to Sushant Singh Rajput, who

innocently divulged that to others and ultimately that information

reached back to those people; and, therefore, to silence the

Petitioner’s daughter her murder was committed. It is also case of

the Petitioner that she was subjected to gang rape before her

murder was committed.

This is the gist of allegations made by the Petitioner.

According to the Petitioner, a false story was concocted and it was

shown as if the Petitioner’s daughter jumped from a flat of her

fiancé which was on the 12th floor of a building; and committed

suicide, between the night of 8th June, 2020 and 9th June, 2020.

10. Shri Ojha submitted that some tainted police officers

were involved in creating a false scene, false evidence and

destroying the real evidence.

11. The Petitioner himself was called by the officers of

Malvani police station, Mumbai at about 4.00 a.m.. He was told

about the tragic news. The Petitioner and his wife immediately
6 of 44
:7: 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

started from their house in a car. On the way, the Petitioner called

his daughter’s friend who advised them to go to Shatabdi Hospital,

Kandivali; but also told him not to look at the body as he would

not be able to bear the pain. On the next day, the Petitioner was

called at the police station and was shown a photograph of the

dead body. The Petitioner raised suspicion that no blood was

seen; which was expected in a case of a death caused due to fall

from a high-rise building. After a few days, a few persons

approached the Petitioner and offered to lodge a complaint on his

behalf purportedly to avoid defamation of the deceased. They

took his signatures on some blank papers. Those papers were

misused. According to Shri Ojha, the Petitioner was not convinced

that his daughter had committed suicide. The Petitioner was not

given any information regarding the investigation. He was not

handed over a copy of the postmortem report. The postmortem

examination was conducted on 11.6.2020 though the death

purportedly had occurred between the night of 8 th and 9th June,

2020.

12. The officers of Malvani police station lodged

Accidental Death Report vide ADR No.85/2020 at 3.07 a.m. on
7 of 44
:8: 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

9.6.2020. It is case of the Petitioner that the police did not make

any inquiry with the Petitioner before registering the ADR. The

police started investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.. The

Petitioner was not informed regarding the investigation at any

stage. On 10.6.2020, the DCP of Malvani Zone held a press

conference and declared that the deceased had committed suicide.

The reason for conducting postmortem after a few days was cited

as spread of COVID-19 and operation of the guidelines for taking

precaution to ensure that the death was not due to Corona virus.

Sushant Singh Rajput committed suicide on 14.6.2020; but on this

occasion the postmortem was conducted within seven hours from

the incident. According to the Petitioner both these incidents were

interlinked. The police conducted the investigation under Section

174 of Cr.P.C. and submitted their report to the ACP on 4.2.2021. It

was not submitted before a Judicial Magistrate and the copies were

not given to the Petitioner or other family members.

13. Subsequently the investigation was reopened and a

Special Investigation Team was formed to investigate the death of

the Petitioner’s daughter; but even during the reinvestigation the

Petitioner was kept in the dark.
8 of 44
:9: 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

14. Finally, the Petitioner sent a complaint addressed to the

Commissioner of Police, Mumbai under Section 154 of Cr.P.C.

seeking registration of FIR and investigation in his complaint.

15. Learned Counsel Shri Ojha submitted that inspite of

the clear allegations of commission of a cognizable offence, the

police did not take any action and the Petitioner’s FIR was not

registered. Under these circumstances, he approached this Court by

way of the present Petition for the reliefs claimed therein.

16. Apart from these submissions on facts, he raised certain

concerns about the factual aspects of the investigation.

17. On legal issues, Shri Ojha submitted that the purpose

of investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. The

procedure is provided under Sections 174 to 176 of Cr.P.C. only to

determine the cause of death. The police are not empowered to

conduct an investigation of the cognizable offence under those

provisions. If the police suspected commission of a cognizable

offence, the next step was registration of FIR and investigation

under the provisions laid down under Section 154 onwards

culminating in the police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C..

18. In support of his submission, Shri Ojha relied on
9 of 44
: 10 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

various judgments. He mainly relied on the judgment of the

Calcutta High Court in the case of Kishwar Jahan & another Vs. State

of West Bengal & others1. He invited our attention to the discussion

in that judgment regarding the scope and limitations of the

investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.. The said judgment is

based on a few Supreme Court judgments.

19. Shri Ojha submitted that the Petitioner does not have

any equally efficacious remedy but to approach this Court for the

reliefs claimed herein. He submitted that the Petitioner cannot be

sent to exercise his option of approaching the learned Magistrate

under Section 173(4) and 175(3) of BNSS (similar to Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C.). He submitted that this case deserves

investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The

Magistrate is not empowered to direct investigation by CBI and,

therefore, the Petitioner cannot be relegated back to the Court of

Magistrate under those provisions. In support of his contention, he

relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case

of Param Bir Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra & others2 and on the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar

1 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 564
2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 516
10 of 44
: 11 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

Pandey & another Vs. Seesh Ram Saini & others3. He invited our

attention to various shortcomings in the investigation conducted by

the police. We shall refer to that investigation at the appropriate

place in this order.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED P.P. SHRI HIRAY ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE:

20. Shri Hiray submitted that, in the first stage, the police

had completed the investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.. vide

the report dated 26.10.2020. It was submitted before the Special

Executive Magistrate, who in this case was ACP Dilip Yadav of

Malvani Zone. He accepted the report on 4.2.2021 and the matter

was closed. On 11.12.2023, the Government of Maharashtra

requested the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai to conduct

further investigation, as many questions were raised in respect of

death of the Petitioner’s daughter and there was a possibility that

some new evidence could be revealed. It was further mentioned in

the said communication dated 11.12.2023 that it was necessary to

review the entire matter. Pursuant to the said letter, the

Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai issued an order dated

12.12.2023 directing investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.. in
3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1951
11 of 44
: 12 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

ADR No.85/2020 of Malvani police station, Mumbai. The

investigation was directed to be carried out under the guidance of

Additional Commissioner of Police, North Division, Mumbai and

under the supervision of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-11.

The Senior Inspector of Police, Malvani Police Station was directed

to conduct the inquiry. He was directed to keep the Commissioner

of Police, Greater Mumbai informed about the progress of

investigation.

21. Pursuant to those directions, the investigation was

carried out. Further investigation papers also contain the

statement of the Petitioner which was received by the police on

14.12.2023 requesting a detailed inquiry regarding his daughter’s

death. The police started the investigation again in December,

2023. It went on for quite some time and finally the report was

submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Special

Executive Magistrate Malvani Division, Mumbai on 14.4.2026. The

conclusion in the report of the further investigation was the same

as was recorded in the report dated 26.10.2020. It was observed

that no fresh evidence was discovered in the further investigation

and it was concluded that the Petitioner’s daughter had committed
12 of 44
: 13 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

suicide and that her death was due to head injury with multiple

injuries (unnatural). The said summary was accepted by the

Assistant Commissioner of Police and Special Executive Magistrate,

Malvani Division vide her order dated 6.5.2026.

22. Shri Hiray submitted that the extensive investigation,

carried out on the two occasions, resulted in the same conclusion

that the Petitioner’s daughter had committed suicide and that there

was no foul play involved. He submitted that during both these

inquiries the Petitioner’s statements were recorded on multiple

occasions. In none of these statements he had raised any suspicion

about commission of any offence. Even the Petitioner’s wife had

not raised any suspicion in various statements given by her. The

Petitioner and his wife’s statements were also recorded in

connection with another case. Those statements were recorded

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and in those statements also they had

not made allegations regarding death of their daughter.

23. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the

investigating agency refers to the investigation carried out by them.

24. Shri Hiray submitted that, in any case, the Petitioner

has an alternate remedy of approaching the Magistrate’s Court
13 of 44
: 14 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

praying for investigation under Section 175 of BNSS. He

submitted that since the police have conducted thorough

investigation, no relief can be granted in this Petition. Shri Hiray

submitted that the police investigation includes the statements of

friends of the deceased who were present in the flat at the relevant

time when the Petitioner’s daughter committed suicide by jumping

from the 12th floor of Rohan Rai’s flat at Malad. Their statements

show that the Petitioner’s daughter had consumed alcohol. She was

depressed because a few important deals had failed. She was also

depressed because she was under the impression that few of her

friends were avoiding her. One more reason mentioned for her

depression was regarding differences with the Petitioner himself.

He, therefore, submitted that because of these reasons, the

Petitioner’s daughter committed suicide and, there was no offence

involved. The police did not come across any evidence showing

involvement of any of her friends or even other persons named by

the Petitioner. He submitted that the postmortem notes and the CA

reports are in consonance with the case of suicide. He, therefore,

submitted that the Petition be dismissed, or at the most, the

Petitioner be granted liberty to approach the Court of Magistrate to
14 of 44
: 15 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

file a complaint and seek investigation under Section 175 of BNSS.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL SHRI PASBOLA
ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENER:

25. Shri Pasbola, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

intervener made certain submissions. At the outset he expressed

sympathy for the Petitioner and agreed that the Petitioner deserves

proper closure. However, he submitted that the intervener should

not be targeted for political motive. He submitted that the

Petitioner has an alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate’s

Court as submitted by Shri Hiray. He relied on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sujal Vishwas Attavar &

another Vs. The State of Maharahtra & others 4. He submitted that the

intervener has locus to intervene in this Petition as he was an

affected party and the CBI cannot be directed to have roving

inquiry. In support of this contention, he relied on the observations

made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab

Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. 5. He relied on the

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

4 Decided on 4.5.2026 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1088/2026 (Hon’ble Supreme Court)
5 (2011) 14 SCC 770
15 of 44
: 16 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal6 wherein it was observed that the criminal

proceedings which are manifestly attended with malafide and/or

where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, they cannot be

continued. He submitted that the present Petition is motivated

with malafide intentions and it is filed to damage the reputation of

the intervener. The intervener is not directly or indirectly connected

with the alleged offence. All the allegations made against him are

based on media reports and hearsay news. They have no basis.

Initially, a PIL was filed by a Petitioner who had no concern with

the family of the deceased. Though that PIL is not pressed, there is

a reference to that PIL in the prayer clauses of this Petition, which

indicates that the present Petition is filed not as an independent

grievance of the Petitioner but only to support the PIL and to cause

damage to the intervener’s reputation.

26. On the merits of the matter, Shri Pasbola supported the

contentions of Shri Hiray. Shri Pasbola submitted that the

intervener has full sympathy for the Petitioner i.e. father of the

deceased; but he cannot be used as a tool to harass the intervener.

6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
16 of 44
: 17 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

SHRI OJHA’S RESPONSE :

27. Shri Ojha objected to the intervention on behalf of the

intervener. He submitted that the Intervention Application cannot

be entertained. In support of his objection, he relied on the

judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Soumen Nandy

Vs. State of West Bengal & others7 and in particular on the

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made by a Three-Judge

Bench in the case of Romila Thapar & others Vs. Union of India &

others8.

REASONS AND CONCLUSION :

28. Before we discuss the arguments and the material

placed before us, it is necessary to mention a clear statement made

by Shri Kuldeep Patil, learned counsel appearing for the CBI in

answer to our specific question. Shri Kuldeep Patil, on instructions,

stated that the CBI has not investigated the case of the Petitioner’s

daughter and there is no order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in connection with her death, to the knowledge of officers of

the CBI. Considering this statement, we proceeded to hear and
7 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1191
8 (2018) 10 SCC 753
17 of 44
: 18 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

decide this Petition.

29. The investigation in this case is carried out by the

officers of Malvani police station under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.. We

are referring to the provisions under Cr.P.C. because at the relevant

time Cr.P.C. was in operation and the investigation was pending till

filing of the second report in April, 2026. The investigation was

carried out under the provisions of Cr.P.C.. There are, of course,

corresponding provisions under BNSS. It is necessary to examine

the scope of investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and to

examine whether the investigation is effective and adequate.

30. Section 174 of Cr.P.C. reads thus :

“174. Police to inquire and report on suicide, etc.—(1)
When the officer in charge of a police station or some other
police officer specially empowered by the State
Government in that behalf receives information that a
person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another
or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has
died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion
that some other person has committed an offence, he shall
immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest
Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and,
unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the
State Government, or by any general or special order of the
District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the
18 of 44
: 19 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

place, where the body of such deceased person is, and
there, in the presence of two or more respectable
inhabitants of the neighbourhood shall make an
investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of
death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other
marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in
what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any),
such marks appear to have been inflicted.

(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and
other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and
shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or
the Sub-divisional Magistrate.

(3) When—

(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years
of her marriage; or

(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven
years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a
reasonable suspicion that some other person committed
an offence in relation to such woman; or

(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven
years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has
made a request in this behalf; or

(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or

(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it
expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the
State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward
the body, with a view to its being examined, to the
nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man
19 of 44
: 20 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the
state of the weather and the distance admit of its being
so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the
road as would render such examination useless.

(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold
inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional
Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially
empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the
District Magistrate.”

The salient feature of Section 174 Cr.P.C. is that the

police officer making investigation has to draw up a report of the

apparent cause of death describing the wounds and stating in what

manner and by what weapon or instrument such wounds appeared

to have been inflicted. He has to make an investigation and draw

up a report in presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of

the neighborhood. He has to visit to the place where the body of

such deceased person is and there he has to make the

investigation. In the present case, the Petitioner’s daughter was

removed to the hospital and her dead body was in the hospital.

Therefore, naturally the police had to go there and make an

investigation. At the same time, they were also required to make

investigation in the presence of two or more respectable

inhabitants of the neighbourhood and to make an investigation.
20 of 44
: 21 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

Therefore, they were also required to go to the spot of incident.

31. Sub-section (3) of Section 174 of Cr.P.C. refers to

different categories where some more duties were cast on the

police officer. In the present case the first three categories would

not be applicable, but, there was a possibility that the present case

may fall within the category (iv) or (v). When there was any doubt

regarding the cause of death, or, the police officer for any other

reason considered it expedient to do so, he was required to send

the body for being examined by the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other

qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State

Government. In the present case, the postmortem examination was

accordingly conducted. These categories are important because

under Section 176 of Cr.P.C.. there is a provision of inquiry by the

Magistrate in the cause of death. In that case, the Magistrate was

mandatorily required to hold inquest if the case fell within the first

two categories. Significantly, the categories (iv) and (v) under

Section 174 (3) of Cr.P.C. are not covered under this mandatory

requirement but in those cases the Magistrate was empowered to

hold inquiry into the cause of death either instead or in addition to

the investigation held by the police officer. Section 176 of Cr.P.C.
21 of 44
: 22 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

reads thus :

“176. Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death.—(1)
when the case is of the nature referred to in clause (i) or
clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 174, the nearest
Magistrate empowered to hold inquests shall, and in any
other case mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 174, any
Magistrate so empowered may hold an inquiry into the
cause of death either instead of, or in addition to, the
investigation held by the police officer; and if he does so,
he shall have all the powers in conducting it which he
would have in holding an inquiry into an offence.
(1A) Where,—
(a) any person dies or disappears, or
(b) rape is alleged to have been committed on any
woman,
while such person or woman is in the custody of the police
or in any other custody authorised by the Magistrate or the
Court, under this Code in addition to the inquiry or
investigation held by the police, an inquiry shall be held by
the Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as
the case may be, within whose local jurisdiction the offence
has been committed.
(2) The Magistrate holding such an inquiry shall record the
evidence taken by him in connection therewith in any
manner hereinafter prescribed according to the
circumstances of the case.
(3) Whenever such Magistrate considers it expedient to
make an examination of the dead body of any person who

22 of 44
: 23 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

has been already inferred, in order to discover the cause of
his death, the Magistrate may cause the body to be
disinterred and examined.
(4) Where an inquiry is to be held under this section, the
Magistrate shall, wherever practicable, inform the relatives
of the deceased whose names and addresses are known, and
shall allow them to remain present at the inquiry.
(5) The Judicial Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate
or Executive Magistrate or police officer holding an inquiry
or investigation, as the case may be, under sub-section (1A)
shall, within twenty-four hours of the death of a person,
forward the body with a view to its being examined to the
nearest Civil Surgeon or other qualified medical man
appointed in this behalf by the State Government, unless it
is not possible to do so for reasons to be recorded in
writing.
Explanation.—In this section, the expression
“relative” means parents, children, brothers, sisters and
spouse.”

This inquiry is either instead or in addition to the

investigation held by the police officers. In the present case, no

such inquiry is held by the Magistrate empowered to hold inquest.

If the inquiry is held, the Magistrate is duty bound to inform the

relatives of the deceased. This particular step is not taken in the

present case.

23 of 44
: 24 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

32. The police officers on their own have power to

investigate and for that purpose Section 175 of Cr.P.C. is important.

Section 175 reads thus :

“175. Power to summon persons.—(1) A police officer
proceeding under section 174 may, by order in writing,
summon two or more persons as aforesaid for the purpose
of the said investigation, and any other person who appears
to be acquainted with the facts of the case and every person
so summoned shall be bound to attend and to answer truly
all questions other than questions the answers to which have
a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a
penalty or forfeiture.

(2) If the facts do not disclose a cognizable offence to which
section 170 applies, such persons shall not be required by
the police officer to attend a Magistrate’s Court.”

The investigation in this case is carried out exercising

the power under Section 175 of Cr.P.C.. This Section or for that

matter Sections 174 and 176 of Cr.P.C. do not give an indication as

to how the investigation carried out by the local police officer can

conclude or culminate. In that case, recourse will have to be taken

to Section 173 of Cr.P.C. which refers to every investigation under

Chapter XII. It is provided that the investigation under that

Chapter is required to be completed without unnecessary delay,
24 of 44
: 25 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

and as soon as it is completed, the police officer is required to

forward a police report to the Magistrate empowered to take

cognizance on this report. However, Sections 174 and 175 of

Cr.P.C. by themselves do not refer to any police report which is

required to be submitted before a Judicial Magistrate empowered

to take cognizance of an offence. Section 175 Cr.P.C. mentions that

the police officer is empowered to summon two or more persons as

mentioned in Section 174 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of the said

investigation and any other person who appears to be acquainted

with the facts. The report mentioned in Section 174 of Cr.P.C.

refers to the requirement to note the apparent cause of death,

describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of

injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner or

by what weapon or instrument (if any) such marks appear to have

been inflicted. That report is required to be signed by the police

officer or other persons or by so many of them as concur therein.

The said report is required to be sent to the District Magistrate or

Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

Vide Government Resolution dated 19.8.1999, the

powers of the Special Executive Magistrate and Sub-Divisional
25 of 44
: 26 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

Magistrate for the purpose of Sections 174, 175 and 176 of Cr.P.C.

were given to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Divisional)

and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zonal) respectively. This

report is not required to be sent to a Judicial Magistrate. Thus, the

purpose of preparing this report is very limited. The investigation

therefore cannot be equated with the investigation in a cognizable

offence under the provisions of Sections 154 to 173 of Cr.P.C..

33. In this context we may advantageously refer to the

judgment of Kishwar Jahan (supra). The said judgment refers to a

passage from a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Pedda Narayana & others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 9. The

relevant portion from paragraph-11 of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court’s judgment in Pedda Narayana (supra) is as follows :

“A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the
object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to
ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the
apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the
details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who
assaulted him or under what circumstances he was
assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope

9 (1975) 4 SCC 153
26 of 44
: 27 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

of the proceedings under Section 174. In these
circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law was
it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details
in the inquest report.”

Kishwar Jahan’s case further refers to Hon’ble Supreme

Court’s judgment in the case of Kodali Purnachandra Rao & another

Vs. The Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh 10. Paragraph-39 of the

said judgment reads thus :

“39. Section 174, Cr.PC peremptorily requires that the
officer holding an inquest on a deadbody should do so at
the spot. This mandate is conveyed by the word 'there'
occurring in Section 174(1). Sub-section (3) of the section
further requires the officer holding the inquest to forward
the body with a view to its being examined, by the medical
man appointed by the State Government in this behalf, if
the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being
so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road
as would renders such examination useless. The sub-section
gives a discretion to the police officer not to send the body
for post-mortem examination by the medical officer only in
one case, namely, where there can be no doubt as to the
cause of the death. This discretion however is to be
exercised prudently and honestly. Could it be said in the
circumstances of the case…..”

10 (1975) 2 SCC 570
27 of 44
: 28 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

34. Kishwar Jahan’s case goes on to elaborate on this

aspect. It was observed in paragraph-205 that the word “there” in

Section 174 is most important and an inquest therefore is to be

conducted at the citus where a dead body is found, if the death had

occurred in unnatural circumstances. The cause of death has to be

ascertained on the basis of the impression of the officer conducting

inquest and from information collected from persons (at lease two)

present at the spot. In paragraph-208, it was categorically held

that after inquest, there was no scope for further enquiry /

investigation under Section 174 of the Code. In paragraph-212, it

was held that once the inquest was completed further enquiry /

investigation under sections 174/175 of the Code is not

contemplated.

In the same judgment, after noting down the suspicious

circumstances the Hon’ble Court went on to hold that the CID

conducting the preliminary enquiry for days together without

registering FIR did afford reasonable ground to suspect foul play

behind the unnatural death of the deceased in that case.

In the present case also we have noticed certain

suspicious circumstances which would be discussed in the
28 of 44
: 29 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

following paragraphs.

In the same judgment, in paragraph-245, it was

observed that in order to find out whether the death was suicidal

or homicidal, the CBI being empowered to exercise powers

conferred on the police to investigate under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C.

could have done so only on recording an FIR.

We are keeping these observations in mind in deciding

this Petition.

35. It is quite clear that under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. there is

no provision for further investigation in contrast to the specific

provision of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.. Having noticed the

inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the investigation under Section

174 of Cr.P.C. we now consider the suspicious circumstances

brought out from the investigation carried out so far. We make it

clear that we are conscious of the fact that we cannot hold a mini

trial and are not in a position to record a finding of fact; but at the

same time some reference is necessary to these circumstances to

enable us to reach a conclusion that the investigation after

registration of an FIR in this case is necessary.

36. The Police Officers are required to conclude the
29 of 44
: 30 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. at the earliest to see

whether registration of FIR is necessary. This is necessary to ensure

that the evidence, if any, is not destroyed or does not disappear due

to passage of time. The investigation cannot go on for an

inordinately long time. In the present case, the investigation was

carried out in two stages and it went on for about six years. This is

not the object of investigation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.. The

investigation carried out by the police raises more questions than it

answers. Therefore, investigation by CBI is necessary in this case.

37. During the course of hearing, learned Public Prosecutor

Shri Hiray tendered four compilations titled as “A to D”. We are

referring to the statements and material from these compilations

with reference to their page numbers. These circumstances are

glaring and hence give rise to reasonable suspicions necessitating

thorough investigation. As we have already mentioned, the

investigating agency shall not be influenced by our observations in

this order but shall carry out investigation on all aspects not limited

to the following circumstances. These circumstances are only

mentioned to reach a conclusion whether registration of an FIR and

the consequent investigation is necessary.
30 of 44
: 31 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

38. Those circumstances are as follows :

i] The spot panchnama was conducted belatedly : In this case

the spot panchnama was conducted belatedly and there are

indications that the police were not treating the case as an

accidental death case but they were suspecting foul play. The

statement of Rohan Rai at Page-186 of compilation “B” is

important. His statements were recorded on multiple

occasions but this particular statement was a supplementary

statement dated 15.6.2020. The statements of the friends of

the Petitioner’s daughter are recorded on more than one

occasion and their basic story about the events from the

evening till the incident is more or less consistent. All of

them have stated that the Petitioner’s daughter was under

depression. All of them enjoyed a party in the evening. They

had consumed alcohol. The Petitioner’s daughter had a video

call with her friend Ankita from London. She had a long

conversation. She then went in the master-bedroom. She did

not open the door. After some time, the friends entered the

bedroom and they noticed her lying on the ground. The flat

was on the 12th floor. This description is mentioned by all of
31 of 44
: 32 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

them. Significantly in Rohan Rai’s supplementary statement

dated 15.6.2020 he mentioned a few important aspects. He

has stated that his friends Himanshu and Indranil did not

allow him to go down as according to them he would be

shocked. Therefore, he waited with his friend Resha inside

the flat. The Petitioner’s daughter was taken to the hospital

by Himanshu and Indranil. After some time, Resha called

Indranil, who told her that he was taking the injured to the

hospital. After that Rohan Rai and Resha came down. They

were about to go to the hospital in his car. At that time the

police came near his building. They made some preliminary

inquiry with him and they conducted inspection of the spot.

Then they took Rohan to his 12 th floor flat. The police went

inside his room and inspected it. Significantly Rohan Rai was

asked to remove his clothes and the police carried

examination of his person. After some time, one of their

friends called telephonically and informed them that she was

taken to Evershine Nursing Home, Malad and then to Tunga

Hospital, Malad and finally to Shatabdi Hospital, Kandivali

where she was declared dead.
32 of 44
: 33 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

These particular events are quite significant. This

was before registration of ADR and even before the police

were informed that the deceased had died. There is no such

reference in the ADR recorded by the police. The police were

at the spot very shortly after the incident. They suspected

Rohan Rai but they did not conduct the spot panchnama. It

was infact conducted between 9.40 a.m. to 9.45 a.m. on

9.6.2020; after more than nine hours from the incident.

This aspect has remained unexplained and raises reasonable

suspicion about the steps taken by the police right at the

beginning.

ii] The timing of ADR No.85/2020: ADR No.85/2020 registered

at Malvani police station, Mumbai shows that the time of the

incident or time of death was mentioned as 2.25 a.m. on

9.6.2020. Registration of ADR was at 3.07 a.m. on 9.6.2020.

The ADR mentions that the police had already recorded the

statements of her parents and that they had not expressed

any suspicion or complaint against anyone. The first

statement of the Petitioner recorded by the police mentions

that he received a phone call from Malvani police station at
33 of 44
: 34 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

about 3.00 a.m. on 9.6.2020. He was asked to go to

Shatabdi Hospital at Kandivali. He reached the hospital at

4.00 a.m.. That time, he came to know about the death of his

daughter. In that statement, he had stated that he did not

have complaint against anyone. This statement itself shows

that he had reached the hospital at 4.00 a.m. and then his

statement was recorded. Therefore, it is not explained as to

how a reference to that statement is made in the ADR

registered at 3.07 a.m. on 9.6.2020.

iii] CCTV footage showing presence of Police Officers : The police

had visited the said building in the night itself. The

panchnama and description of CCTV footage are included in

the compilation “A” from page No.65 onwards. Page No.67

shows that the police were present along with Resha and

Rohan Rai at 2.14 a.m. in the said Flat No.1202 on 9.6.2020.

Page No.69 shows that the police were present in that flat at

1.33 a.m.. On page No.75 it is mentioned that the police

were present in the building at 12.59 a.m. on 9.6.2020. Thus,

right from about 1.00 a.m. to 2.14 a.m. immediately the

police were present at the spot in the building. There is no
34 of 44
: 35 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

further reference either in the ADR or in the following

investigation as to why they had gone there. There is no

reference as to who were those police officers and what

investigation they had carried out there and why there is no

such reference in the ADR or in the following reports.

iv] No blood at the spot where she had fallen : As we have

observed, the spot panchnama was carried out belatedly.

There are statements of at least two witnesses at page

Nos.217 & 218 in compilation “B” who were standing near

the spot where she had fallen. They had actually heard the

sound of somebody falling. Both these witnesses have

described that she had fallen on her face and blood was

oozing from her head. Those statements are recorded on

15.8.2020 and 14.8.2020 respectively. The police had not

recovered any blood stained earth from the spot and there

was no bleeding injury to the head except bleeding injury to

the chin. Their statements were important.

v] Injuries mentioned in the postmortem notes : The

postmortem notes mentioned the following six injuries :

35 of 44
: 36 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

1. CLW seen over chin 1x1x1 cms reddish, irregular, oedematus;
2. Grazed abrassion seen over upper part of chest and abdomen,
reddish;
3. Abraded contusion seen on left elbow.
4. Abrasion seen on right arm, reddish.
5. Abrasion seen on left upper part of thigh, lower leg and knee,
reddish.
6. CLW seen over right heel, reddish.

The internal examination showed that there was

linear fracture of skull bones with sign of infiltration

staining extended to base in anterior and middle cranial

fossa. There were multiple ribs fracture with contused

intercostal muscles. All other organs including pleura,

larynx, trachea, bronchi, pericardium, peritioneum etc. were

intact. The frontal teeth had fallen.

If the deceased had fallen on her face from 12th floor,

then it is difficult to accept that there was only one injury of

the size 1 x 1 x 1 cm in the nature of CLW over the chin. Not

a single facial bone was fractured. There was neither

fracture of mandible nor even of nasal bone which is quite

delicate. We find this difficult to accept. This, of course,

would be subject to expert’s opinion.
36 of 44
: 37 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

vi] Suspicion raised by Chemical Analyzer in respect of less blood

on articles : The Assistant Chemical Analyzer attached to the

Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai had raised a significant

issue. They had addressed a letter to the Deputy

Commissioner of Police and had informed him that they had

received the articles and it was mentioned in the forwarding

letter that the death was caused because of jump from the

12th floor. In that case, it was expected that there was more

blood on the articles, but, when the articles were opened

there was less blood. The Chemical Analyzer himself had

raised this suspicion through a written communication

dated 15.9.2020. (Page-354, Compilation “C”)

The police then had acted on that letter and sent

their own letter dated 7.10.2020 to the Medical Officer,

Borivali Postmortem Center seeking their opinion as to why

there could be less blood on the articles. (Page-383,

Compilation “C”) There was a specific reference to the

clothes of the deceased. The police themselves were not

sure as to why there was less blood on her clothes.

37 of 44
: 38 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

vii] No mention of damage to the door in the spot panchnama :

The statement of Ankita at page No.223 in compilation “B”

mentions that Himanshu had told her that the deceased had

locked herself in a bedroom and that she was crying. The

statement of the friends mention that Rohan forcefully

opened the door. In that case it was expected that there was

some damage to the lock or to the door but the spot

panchnama does not show any such damage.

viii] Discrepancy pointed out by FSL : There is one more glaring

feature which requires some consideration. The postmortem

report mentions in column No.21 that the anal swab and

vaginal swab were taken for examination. The description of

the Medical Officer’s letter to the FSL mentions that the

‘vaginal swab’ and ‘anal swab’ were sent but the exhibit

found in the envelope were ‘vaginal smear on slide’ and

‘anal smear on slide’. The FSL sought explanation regarding

this discrepancy and they addressed a letter dated 20.8.2020

to the Medical Officer, Borivali postmortem center. Said

letter is at page Nos.355 & 357 in compilation “C”. These

two swabs were important in the context of the allegations.
38 of 44
: 39 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

The Medical Officer responded by sending a letter dated

25.9.2020 and it was mentioned that vaginal swab and the

anal swab were not taken but vaginal smear and anal smear

were taken. It was mentioned that the form sent to the FSL

inadvertently mentioned vaginal swab and anal swab and

that the FSL should read it as vaginal smear and anal smear

instead of vaginal swab and anal swab. (Page-344,

Compilation “C”) This discrepancy is also important in the

context of the case. Because the C.A. Report at Page-347 in

compilation “C” mentions that no male DNA was detected in

those slides.

ix] The police themselves sent a letter dated 12.8.2020 at page

No.338 in compilation “C” to the doctor conducting the

postmortem examination as to why the body was nude. That

is surprising because the police themselves had effected the

seizure panchnama of her clothes. The clothes were kept on

the stretcher. They were identified by Rohan Rai. If the

police were already aware of seizure of the clothes then

there was no occasion to ask the doctor as to why there

were no clothes on the body.
39 of 44
: 40 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

x] The Petitioner’s daughter’s laptop and mobile phone were

important part of the evidence. They were seized and

examined much belatedly on 17.6.2020 from custody of

Rohan Rai. They were not seized during the spot

panchnama of the flat conducted on 9.6.2020.

39. Thus, we find that there are too many glaring

discrepancies which necessitated proper and substantive

investigation under the provisions of Sections 154 to 173 of Cr.P.C..

That was not done in the present case. Therefore, we are of the

considered opinion that this case deserves registration of FIR and

investigation in a cognizable offence.

40. Though Shri Pasbola and the learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the Petitioner has an option to approach the

Magistrate and pray for investigation under the provisions of

Section 175 of the BNSS, we have noted history of this case. The

investigation was carried out in two phases by the police. It was

going on for almost more than six years. Therefore, in the facts of

this case it would not be proper to ask the Petitioner to approach

the Court of Magistrate and seek police investigation. As rightly
40 of 44
: 41 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

submitted by Shri Ojha, the Magistrate has no power to direct the

CBI to investigate into the offence. In this particular case, we are of

the opinion that the police had sufficient opportunity to investigate

the offence but they have not registered the FIR and have not

carried out the investigation of a cognizable offence. Instead, they

conducted investigation under the provisions of Section 174 of

Cr.P.C.. which according to us was inadequate and insufficient in

the facts of the present case.

41. Therefore, in this case, another investigating agency

like CBI is required to investigate the offence. We agree with Shri

Ojha that the Petitioner does not have any equally efficacious and

effective remedy in this particular case except to seek investigation

by CBI.

42. Shri Ojha had prayed that the investigation be carried

out under the supervision of this Court. However, we are not

inclined to accept that request. There is no reason to doubt the

effectiveness of the investigation to be conducted by CBI.. We have

no reason to assume that such investigation would not be fair,

impartial and effective. Therefore, we are not accepting that

41 of 44
: 42 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

particular request.

43. At the cost of repetition, we make it clear that we have

not made any observations against any particular individual. That

would be strictly within the realm of the investigation. We do not

want to interfere with the investigation in any manner. The

investigating agency shall have full freedom to investigate all

aspects of this case in accordance with law. They shall not be

influenced by any observations made in this order. We have noted

the suspicious circumstances only to arrive at a conclusion that the

registration of FIR and the investigation in cognizable offence is

necessary.

44. The investigating agency, namely, CBI, shall have all the

options open. At the appropriate stage they can add or delete the

provisions of offences applied by them depending on what the

investigation reveals. They will be at a liberty to file appropriate

Summary if no offence is made out; but in that case the Petitioner

will have a right to prefer a Protest Petition challenging the finding

that no offence is made out. The Investigating Agency shall

interact with the Petitioner and his family with sensitivity as they

42 of 44
: 43 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

will have to remember the tragic incident in detail. At the same

time care should be taken that no innocent person is harassed and

the offenders, if any, are made to face the trial.

45. As a result of the above discussion, we pass the

following order :

:: O R D E R ::

i. The officer attached to Central Bureau of Investigation

[CBI], who is in-charge for Mumbai region, shall appoint a

suitably experienced and senior CBI Officer as an

Investigating Officer in this case.

ii. Such officer shall record the statement of the Petitioner and

iii. The Investigating Officer shall conduct the investigation

regarding all aspects surrounding the circumstances in which

the Petitioner’s daughter lost her life.

iv. Nobody shall be treated as an accused unless in the opinion

of the Investigating Officer there are sufficient grounds to

raise reasonable suspicion against him depending on the

material collected during the investigation.

43 of 44
: 44 : 901-wp-1612-2025.odt

v. The investigation shall be carried out under the provisions of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. If the offence

is made out, appropriate report be filed before the competent

Court.

vi. In case the investigation reveals that no offence is made out,

then appropriate Summary be filed before the competent

Court; but in that case, the Petitioner shall have a right to file

the Protest Petition challenging such report.

vii. The concerned officers of Malvani police station, Mumbai

shall hand over all the necessary papers and articles to the

Investigating Officer of CBI.

viii. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. With

disposal of the Petition, all the connected applications are

also disposed of.

(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE Date:
2026.09.02
11:20:32
+0530 Deshmane (PS)

44 of 44

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…