Bombay High Court
AISHWARYA VIVEKANAND MAYEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The petition is dismissed as no case is made out to set aside the magistrate’s order.
Summary
Aishwarya Vivekanand Mayekar filed a criminal writ petition challenging an order dated 22‑12‑2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikhroli, which permitted Respondent No.2 to travel abroad while a criminal case (C.C. No. 1106/PW/2021) was pending. The petitioner argued that allowing such travel would delay the disposal of the case. The magistrate had allowed the application with specific conditions, including an undertaking to disclose the advocate’s name and not to extend the stay abroad, and a condition that the accused not dispute his identity during trial in his absence. The High Court examined whether the magistrate’s order was perverse or beyond jurisdiction. Finding no such error and noting that the magistrate had addressed the petitioner’s concerns, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in permitting the accused to travel abroad pending trial
- Whether such permission would unjustifiably delay the disposal of the criminal case
- Whether the magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction or acted perversely in granting the application
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Travel abroad permission
- Pending trial
- Writ petition
- Jurisdiction
- Speedy trial
Judgment
Digitally signed
by
LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN (18) WP-695.26.DOCX
CHANDAN Date:
2026.02.25
13:00:10
+0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 695 OF 2026
Aishwarya Vivekanand Mayekar : Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and anr. : Respondents.
______________________________________________________
Mr. Vinayak Pandit i/by Advocate Ajinkya Udane, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Sukanta A Karmarkar, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Manoj Borkar, for the Respondent No.2.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 17 FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Vinayak Pandit, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, Mr. Sukanta Karmarkar, learned APP for the
Respondent/State and Mr. Manoj Borkar, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
2. This Petition, at the instance of the Complainant, assails
the order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai
1
(18) WP-695.26.DOCX
(Magistrate), in C.C. No. 1106/PW/2021 in C.R. No. 669 of
2021 (“impugned order”), by which the Magistrate allowed
the Application filed by Respondent No. 2 seeking permission
to travel abroad.
3. Mr. Vinayak Pandit, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
submits that the impugned order is challenged solely on the
ground that if the Respondent No.2 is permitted to travel
abroad, the disposal of the Criminal Case No.1106/PW/2021
pending on the file of the Magistrate would be delayed. On
this ground, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order.
4. Mr. Sukanta Karmarkar, learned APP, and Mr. Manoj
Borkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, submit that
the impugned order addresses the situation the Petitioner
seeks to raise as a ground to question the impugned order,
which, according to them, is a well-reasoned and well-
considered order.
5. Arguments heard. Perused records.
6. After hearing the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 and
the Prosecution, the Magistrate has allowed the Application
filed by the Respondent No.2 and permitted the Respondent
No.2 to travel abroad, subject to the conditions mentioned in
Paras 2(a) to 2(f) of the operative part of the impugned
order.
2
(18) WP-695.26.DOCX
7. Conditions Nos. 2(d) and 2(f) of the impugned order
read as follows:
“2(d) He shall given undertaking disclosing the name
of his advocate, that his advocate will represent him
before this court on every date of case and he shall not
extend his period of stay at abroad as mentioned above.
2(f) Accused/applicant should not dispute identity,
during trial if the matter is proceed in his absence.”
8. The Magistrate has addressed the apprehension, as
sought to be expressed by the Petitioner, before this Court.
9. Mr. Vinayak Pandit, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
has failed to show any perversity or any jurisdictional error in
the impugned order.
10. In view of the above, no case is made out to entertain
this Petition.
11. This Criminal Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
3
Checking your session…