Bombay High Court
AFZAL SULEMAN KHAN @ PARVESH @ PARMESH GUDDU GUPTA @ PABHUJYOT SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court rejected the applicant's request to change his legal‑aid advocate, holding that the applicant cannot dictate the appointment of a specific counsel under legal aid.
Summary
The applicant, Afzal Suleman Khan, filed an interim application from jail seeking to replace his court‑appointed legal‑aid counsel, Mr. Mihir Joshi, with another advocate, Mr. Kartik Garg. The applicant did not clarify whether he would retain legal‑aid status if represented by Mr. Garg. The court noted that under legal‑aid provisions, a specific advocate cannot be mandated by the applicant and that the court had already appointed Mr. Ajinkya Udane as the applicant's legal‑aid counsel. Consequently, the court found no merit in the request and rejected the interim application. The decision underscores that legal‑aid appointments are at the court's discretion and not subject to the applicant's personal preference. The application was dismissed without any order for a change of counsel.
Issues considered
- Whether an applicant under legal aid can demand representation by a specific advocate of his choice
- Whether the court can reject a request to change the court‑appointed legal‑aid counsel
Subjects
- legal aid
- change of advocate
- interim application
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
- court‑appointed counsel
Judgment
Digitally signed
by ARUNA
SANDEEP
ARUNA TALWALKAR
SANDEEP Date:
TALWALKAR 2026.10.09
20:08:42
+0530
304.IA2819.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2819 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2016
Afzal Suleman Khan @ Parvesh@ Parmesh
Guddu Gupta @ Pabhujyot Singh. … Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
--------------
Mr. Ajinkya Udane, Advocate for Applicant appointed through
Legal Aid.
Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for Respondent/State.
--------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 9th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. The Applicant has filed the present Application through
jail for change of Advocate. It is the case of the Applicant that Mr.
Mihir Joshi, learned Advocate was appointed by this court vide
order dated 10/6/2022 passed in Interim Application No. 2935 of
2021 should not represent him and he be represented by Advocate
Mr. Kartik Garg. The Applicant has not stated whether he is
willing to appoint Mr. Kartik Garg as his private advocate for
through legal aid. In any case, earlier Advocate Mr. Joshi was
Talwalkar 1
304.IA2819.2026.odt
appointed through legal aid. We do not agree with the contention
of the Applicant that he should be represented by a particular
advocate through legal aid. In this premise, we reject the
Application. There is yet another ground for rejection namely that
we have appointed Mr. Ajinkya Udane as learned Counsel through
legal aid to represent the Applicant, who is present before us today.
2. For the above reasons, the Interim Application is rejected.
(SANDESH D.PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Talwalkar 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.