Bombay High Court

PURUSHOTTAM C MANDHANAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Decided: 1 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the statutory period for filing a discharge application under Section 250 BNSS must be measured from the date the prosecution supplies all relevant documents, thereby allowing the accused to file discharge applications despite the lapse of the original 60‑day deadline.

Summary

The Bombay High Court heard a batch of criminal revision applications filed by several accused challenging a Special Judge's order that refused to entertain their discharge applications on the ground that they were filed beyond the 60‑day period prescribed under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicants contended that the prosecution had not yet supplied all the documents relied upon, preventing them from filing discharge applications within the statutory period. The Court examined the provisions of Sections 250 and 232 of the BNSS and noted that the prosecution continued to produce documents after the case was committed, thereby delaying the accused's ability to assess the case. It held that the 60‑day limitation should be measured from the date the prosecution completed furnishing the necessary documents, not merely from the date of commitment. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision applications, permitting the accused to file discharge applications before the Special Court, and directed the Special Judge to decide those applications on their merits. The order also disposed of the revision applications accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the 60‑day period for filing a discharge application under Section 250 of the BNSS commences from the date of commitment of the case or from the date when the prosecution completes production of all documents.
Whether the Special Judge erred in refusing to entertain discharge applications filed after the statutory period on the basis of the above timing issue.
Whether the applicants are entitled to exemption from personal appearance and relief from non‑bailable warrants issued against them.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 232, 250

Subjects

criminal procedure
discharge application
time limit
revision
BNSS
Special Court
non‑bailable warrant
personal appearance exemption

Judgment

75-REVN-489-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 489 OF 2026
VAISHALI
ANIL Purushottam C Mandhana ...Applicant/s
TIKAM VERSUS
Directorate of Enforcement ...Respondent/s
Digitally signed WITH
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 490 OF 2026
Date:
2026.10.09
17:58:49 +0530 Biharilal Chhaganlal Mandhana ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Directorate of Enforcement ...Respondent/s

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 491 OF 2026

Manish Biharilal Mandhana ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Directorate of Enforcement ...Respondent/s
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 495 OF 2026

Sangeeta Mandhana ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Directorate of Enforcement ...Respondent/s

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 496 OF 2026

Sudha Mandhana ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Directorate of Enforcement ...Respondent/s

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 497 OF 2026

Priyavrat Mandhana ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Directorate of Enforcement ...Respondent/s

Page 1 of 7
75-REVN-489-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 498 OF 2026

Prema Mandhana ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Directorate of Enforcement ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Rajiv Patil, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Prashant Relekar a/w, Mr.
Vikrant Phatate a/w. Mr. Sujit Lahoti a/w. Altamash Kapadia i/b Sujit
Lahoti and Associates, Advocates for the Applicants in Revision Application
Nos. 489 of 2026 and 498 of 2026.
Mr. Vikrant Phatate a/w. Sujit Lahoti a/w. Altamash Kapadia i/b Sujit
Lahoti & Associates, Advocates for the Applicants in Revision Application
Nos. 490 of 2026, 491 of 2026, 495 of 2026 and 497 of 2026.
Mr. Amit Munde, Special Counsel a/w. Ms. Jai Vohra a/w. Shantanu
Nakashe a/w. Parth Tari for Respondent-Enforcement Directorate
Mr. M.G. Patil, APP for State in Revision Application Nos. 489 of 2026 &
491 of 2026.
Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP State in Revision Application Nos. 490 of 2026
& 497 of 2026.
Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for State in Revision Application Nos. 495 of 2026 &
498 of 2026.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for State in Revision Application No. 496 of 2026.
_________________________________________________________________

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER 2026.
P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned Special

Counsel for the respondent along with learned APP.

2. The challenge in these applications is to the order dated

20/08/2026 passed in Roznama below Exhibit 82, whereby the Learned

Special Judge refused to entertain the discharge application of the

applicants on the ground that the same was not filed within the stipulated

time. The Applicants also challenges the subsequent order dated

Page 2 of 7
75-REVN-489-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

31.08.2026 passed in Roznama below Exhibit 83, whereby the application

for exemption from personal appearance came to be rejected and non-

bailable warrants came to be issued against the absent-accused Nos. 1 to

7/Applicants.

3. As all the Applicants have challenged the same orders, hence, I

am deciding these applications by this common order.

4. It is contention of learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel

for the Applicants that as per Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), the stipulated period to file a

discharge application is 60 days. In the present cases, not all documents

were supplied to the Applicants - Accused by the prosecution and the

process of supplying documents is still ongoing. Hence, the Applicants

sought to file applications for discharge, but the learned Judge refused to

entertain the discharge applications on the ground that those applications

were not filed within stipulated time of 60 days. Learned Senior Counsel

and learned counsel further submitted that, as the prosecution could not

supply all the documents, the applicants could not have filed the

applications earlier, unless all the documents were supplied to them.

However, this fact has not been considered by the learned Special Judge.

Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Applicants be given

an opportunity to tender their discharge applications, as they have good

Page 3 of 7
75-REVN-489-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

case, and requested to allow the applications.

5. It is contention of learned Special Counsel that as per Section

250 of BNSS, a specific time limit is given to file discharge application i.e.

within 60 days from the date of commitment of the case. The Applicants

appeared before the learned Special Court through counsel and proceeded

with the trial, but did not file the discharge applications within the

stipulated period. Later on, the applicants filed discharge applications only

to prolong the trial. The Learned Judge has passed well-reasoned order. No

interference is required in it and requested to reject the applications.

6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order.

The Learned Judge has observed that as per Section 250 of BNSS, discharge

applications were not filed within 60 days and, therefore, they cannot be

entertained. Section 250 of BNSS reads as under:

"250. Discharge - (1) The accused may prefer an application for
discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of
commitment of the case under Section 232.
(2) If, upon consideration of the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the
Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his
reasons for so doing."

This Section provides that an application for discharge may be preferred

Page 4 of 7
75-REVN-489-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

within a period of 60 days from the date of commitment of the case under

Section 232 of BNSS. Section 232 reads as under:

"232. Commitment of case to Court of Session when offence
is triable exclusively by it.- When in a case instituted on a
police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought
before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that
the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he
shall-
(a) commit, after complying with the provisions of
section 230 or section 231 the case to the Court of Session,
and subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to bail,
remand the accused to custody until such commitment has
been made;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Sanhita relating to
bail, remand the accused to custody during, and until the
conclusion of, the trial;
(c) send to that Court the record of the case and the
documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in
evidence;
(d) notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of
the case to the Court of Session.
Provided that the proceedings under this section shall be
completed within a period of ninety days from the date of
taking cognizance, and such period may be extended by the
Magistrate for a period not exceeding one hundred and
eighty days for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
Provided further that any application filed before the
Magistrate by the accused or the victim or any person

Page 5 of 7
75-REVN-489-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

authorized by such person in a case triable by the Court of
Session, shall be forwarded to the Court of Session with the
committal of the case."
This Section provides for commitment of the case. In the present case, it

appears from the record that on every date, the prosecution had tendered

documents before the Learned Special Court and the learned counsel for the

Applicants were called upon to file their Say thereon. Thus, it shows that

prosecution had not tendered all the documents to the Applicants. It is

expected that all the documents on which prosecution is relying must be

filed along with chargesheet. If prosecution producing documents after

filing chargesheet, Applicants cannot be forced to file discharge applications

unless they receive all the documents relied upon by the prosecution.

However, these facts are not considered by the Learned Special Judge and

proceeded only on the basis that the period of 60 days had expired. It

appears from the record that Applicants had filed applications below Exhibit

71 to investigating officer seeking supply of the documents which were in

sealed custody, and which, according to the Applicants, had not been relied

upon by the prosecution. The said applications were responded by the

prosecution, and the learned Special Judge passed an order thereon dated

10/07/2026. The Applicants thereafter tendered their discharge

applications on 20/08/2026. Thus, the discharge applications were

tendered within 60 days from the order dated 10/07/2026 passed below

Page 6 of 7
75-REVN-489-2026 (CR).doc

Tikam

Exhibit 71. Considering these facts, it is necessary to give an opportunity to

the Applicants to file discharge applications and I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) Revision Applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (d).

(ii) The Applicants are permitted to file their discharge applications

before the Learned Special Court, if they desire.

(iii) The Learned Special Judge shall consider and decide the said

discharge applications on their own merits and in accordance with law.

(iv) Revision Applications are disposed of accordingly.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 7 of 7

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.