Bombay High Court
Abhishek Babaji YewaleversusThe State of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The revision is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, and the discharge application is remanded for fresh hearing on its merits.
Summary
The applicant, Vaishali Anil, filed a discharge application in a Sessions case which was rejected on the ground that it was not filed within the statutory 60‑day period after committal, without any consideration of its merits. The applicant then filed a criminal revision under Section 397 of the CrPC challenging the rejection. The High Court held that the rejection was procedurally flawed as it ignored the merits and therefore allowed the revision, quashing the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 06/11/2025. The discharge application was remanded back to the Sessions Judge for a fresh hearing on its merits. The revision application was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of rejecting a discharge application solely on the basis of non‑compliance with the 60‑day filing period without considering its merits?
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the Additional Sessions Judge's order under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the discharge application should be reheard on its substantive merits.
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Discharge application
- Revision jurisdiction
- Sessions Court
- Time limit for filing
- Fresh hearing
Judgment
32-REVN-502-2025 (CR).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 502 OF 2025
VAISHALI Abhishek Babaji Yewale ...Applicant/s
ANIL VERSUS
TIKAM
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent/s
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
_________________________________________________________________
2026.09.07
13:48:55 +0530
Mr. Aniket Vagal, Advocate for Applicant.
Smt. R.D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP.
2. The Applicant's discharge application is rejected only on the
ground that it was not filed within 60 days after committal of the case.
The application was not decided on merit. Hence, this is a fit case
remanding back the matter for fresh hearing and I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 06/11/2025 passed by the
Additional Sesssion Judge, Vadgaon Maval, Pune in Sessions Case No. 38
of 2025 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Discharge application of the Applicant is remanded back for
fresh hearing.
Page 1 of 2
32-REVN-502-2025 (CR).doc
Tikam
(iv) Learned Sessions Judge shall hear the discharge application of
the Applicant afresh and decide on its own merit.
(v) Revision Application is disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…