Bombay High Court
IMRAN HUSSAIN KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The order cancelling the bail bonds was set aside as the petitioner’s undertaking to attend all future dates and lack of dilatory conduct negated any justification for the cancellation.
Summary
The petitioner, Imran Hussain Khan, challenged an order dated 29 June 2026 of the Additional Special Judge (MCOC), Thane, which cancelled his bail bond and that of co‑accused Mahendra Jayprakash Sing on the ground of their absence. The trial court justified the cancellation by noting the case’s ten‑year pendency and the need for a time‑bound disposal, asserting that the accused’s non‑appearance hindered proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the absence on 29 June was due to heavy rain and traffic, and highlighted the petitioner’s consistent attendance and cooperation throughout the trial, offering an undertaking to appear on all future dates. Relying on this undertaking and the absence of any dilatory intent, the High Court quashed the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- The legality of cancelling bail bonds on the basis of the accused’s absence in a long‑pending case
- Whether the petitioner’s undertaking to attend all future dates warrants setting aside the trial court’s order
- Scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 to review the trial court’s order
Subjects
- bail
- exemption applications
- Article 227
- writ petition
- trial court order
- attendance undertaking
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
150-WP-4165-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4165 OF 2026
Imran Hussain Khan …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Ms. Apeksha Vora a/w. Mr. Sujit Mishra and Mr. Aniruddh Yadav,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 25th AUGUST 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Ms. Vora, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. Jadhav, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State.
2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and
validity of the order dated 29 th June 2026 passed by the learned
Additional Special Judge (MCOC), Thane, below Exhibits 323 and
324 in Special Case (MCOC) No.1 of 2016.
3. Ms. Vora, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submitted that by the impugned order passed below Exhibit-323
Page 1
Sonali
150-WP-4165-2026.DOC
and Exhibit-324, Applications seeking exemptions have been
rejected and bail bonds of Accused No.1-Mahendra Jayprakash
Sing and Accused No.3-Imran Husain Khan were cancelled due to
their absence.
4. The learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order
has observed that the case is 10 years old and High Court has
expedited the case and therefore, due to the absence of accused,
conducting a time bound matter is affected.
5. Ms. Vora, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states
that on 29th June 2026 there was heavy rainfall and therefore, the
Applicant/Accused No.3- Imran Hussain Khan was stuck in traffic.
6. Ms. Vora, learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner will
attend each and every date and completely co-operate for
expeditious disposal of the said Special Case (MCOC) No.1 of
2016. She points out the statements made in paragraph Nos.6, 7
and 8 of the Writ Petition. The said paragraphs are reproduced
hereinbelow:
Page 2
Sonali
150-WP-4165-2026.DOC
“6.The Petitioner respectfully submits that after
grant of bail on 17.05.2023, the matter has
remained pending before the learned Special Court
for more than two years and eight months, and has
been listed more than 52 occasions, spanning a
period of approximately 2 years, 11 months.
7. The Petitioner respectfully submits that
throughout the pendency of the trial, he has
remained substantially/precisely complied with the
directions issued by the learned Trial Court. The
Roznama demonstrates that the Petitioner remained
present before the Court on all the occasions, except
on few occasions, exemption applications were
moved on behalf of the Petitioner owing to
unavoidable circumstances, including medical and
other genuine difficulties.
8. The Petitioner submits that the aforesaid
attendance record clearly establishes that he has
never adopted any dilatory tactics not intentionally
delayed the proceedings. On the contrary, he has
consistently cooperated with the learned Trial Court
in the expeditious disposal of the case.”
7. In view of the above circumstances, Ms. Vora, learned
Counsel states that the Petitioner has never avoided the trial and
on instructions, she states that the Petitioner will attend each and
every date of the trial. The said statements are accepted as
undertakings given to this Court.
Page 3
Sonali
150-WP-4165-2026.DOC
8. Accordingly, by accepting the statement that the Petitioner
will attend each and every date before the learned Trial Court and
completely co-operate in the disposal of the said Special Case
(MCOC) No.1 of 2016, the impugned order dated 29 th June 2026
passed by the learned Additional Special Judge (MCOC) No.1 of
2016 passed below Exhibits-323 and 324 in Special Case (MCOC)
No.1 of 2016 is quashed and set aside.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.08.25
17:54:57
+0530
Page 4
Sonali
Checking your session…