Bombay High Court
Ashwini Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 August, 2025
Author: S. M. Modak
Bench: S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:35303
501. WP 4374 of 2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4374 OF 2025
Ashwini Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents
*****
Adv. Dilip H. Shukla a/w Adv. Advocate for the Petitioner
Ekta Patil
Adv. Shreeram Shirsat (SPP) Advocate for the Respondent-CBI
a/w Adv. Antara Kulkarni,
Adv. Iqraa Qureshi, Adv.
Nikhil Daga,
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 14th AUGUST 2025
P. C. :-
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Shukla for the Petitioner and
learned Advocate Shirsat for the Respondent-CBI.
2. The case is pending before the Special Judge under CBI at
Greater Mumbai. All the prosecution evidence is over and now the
matter is fixed for recording 313 of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is
Digitally signed
by SEEMA
SEEMA KSHITIJ
YELKAR
KSHITIJ Date:
YELKAR 2025.08.14
19:22:42 Seema 1/3
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:57:10 :::
501. WP 4374 of 2025.doc
disabled person. His certificate is on page no. 57. It is issued by the
Department of Neurosurgery PGIMS Rohtak, Hariyana. For his
disability, he claims that he is unable to remain physically present
before the trial court. Even the evidence is recorded in his absence and
in the presence of his advocate.
3. Learned Special Judge on 01.08.2025 has issued non-bailable
warrant against the accused in view of the non co-operation of the
Petitioner to appear through V.C. and even on account of non-co-
operation of his learned Advocate. Now it is submitted that the
Petitioner is ready to appear through Video conferencing. Learned
Advocate Mr. Shukla tried to explain why he could not appear before
the trial court on the particular date. Even he has invited my attention
to the order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Criminal Writ Petition (ST)
18758 of 2023, on page no. 53. There also direction was given about
availability of the video conferencing facility.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Shukla submitted that his client will
appear before the District Court, Panipat wherein video conferencing
facility is available.
5. Ultimately, non-bailable warrant was issued because the
Seema 2/3
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/08/2025 21:57:10 :::
501. WP 4374 of 2025.doc
Petitioner has not co-operated. Now through his Advocate he is
assuring to co-operate. In view of that following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The Petitioner to file an application for cancellation of the
Non-bailable warrant before the Special Judge.
(ii) The Special Judge need not insist for physical presence of
the Petitioner. It can be secured through video
conferencing.
(iii) The Petitioner to inform the trial Court about his
willingness to answer the question put under Section 313
of the Criminal Procedure Code through video
conferencing.
(iv) The trial Court to pass necessary directions for making
video conferencing facility available at District Court,
Panipat. It is made clear this Court has not commented on
appearance of the Petitioner in Court at the time of
pronouncing of judgment.
(v) It is also made clear the learned Advocate of Petitioner to
assure trial Court to give all sorts of co-operation while
advancing arguments.
6. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
