Mohammad Akram Md. Gyasuddin vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1084 Bom

        J-cwp26.17.odt                                                                                                  1/2     


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.26 OF 2017


        Mohammad Akram Md. Gyasuddin,
        Aged about 30 years,
        Occupation :  Business,
        Resident of Kolsatal, Kamptee.                                              :      PETITIONER

                           ...VERSUS...

        State of Maharashtra,
        through Police Station Officer,
        Police Station Kamptee (New).                                               :      RESPONDENT


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri Laique Hussain, Advocate for the Petitioner.
        Shri N.H. Joshi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 27 MARCH, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. By this petition, the petitioner has once again challenged the

legality and correctness of the order dated 21.6.2016 and also another

order dated 11th July, 2016. The order dated 21.6.2016 was passed by the

J-cwp26.17.odt 2/2

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khamptee, in Misc. Criminal Appliation

No.198/2016 and the order dated 11.7.2016 was passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge No.2 in Criminal Revision No.137/2016. By the order

passed on 21.6.2016, the learned Magistrate had refused to grant interim

custody of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. MH-40-Y-4457 to the

petitioner and this order was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in

the Criminal Revision No.137/2016. Both these orders were carried in

criminal writ petition being Criminal Writ Petition No.576/2016. This writ

petition too was dismissed on 14 th September, 2016 by this Court. After

dismissal of this petition, no fresh application for custody on the ground of

change of circumstances has been filed by the petitioner. The order dated

14th September, 2016 passed in said writ petition has also not been

challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, now, as the order dated

14th September, 2016 has attained finality, so far as the question of interim

custody is concerned, and there being no new grounds raised in this

petition, this petition cannot be allowed. It is devoid of any merit. Writ

Petition stands dismissed.

5. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his

request before the trial Court on the ground of change of circumstances.

6. Rule is discharged.

JUDGE okMksns