[Cites 29, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr vs Mangesh Pandurang Kadam on 9 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:53897-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.25114 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.5137 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ] .. Applicants
Versus
Mangesh Pandurang Kadam ] .. Respondent
(Org. Petitioner
No.2/Accused)
Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, In-Charge Public Prosecutor with Mr. K.V.
Saste, Additional Public Prosecutor for Applicant-State of
Maharashtra.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Kadam,
Mr. Jatin P. Karia (Shah), Ms. Snehankita M. Munj, Ms. Shraddha
Kamble and Mr. Vijay Andhale, Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Jatin Sehgal (through V.C.) with Mr. Kunal Vaishnav,
Mr. Yash Badkur and Ms. Rehana Shaikh, Advocates for Original
Respondent No.2 in Cri.WP/5137/2025.
CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2025.
[ THROUGH HYBRID HEARING ]
PER SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ.:
A Praecipe was filed through the office of the Public
Prosecutor seeking circulation for urgent hearing. At that time, no
formal application seeking leave of this Court for filing the charge-
sheet against Mangesh Pandurang Kadam was filed on behalf of
the Investigating Agency. In that Praecipe, it is stated that
sufficient evidence has been collected against Mangesh Pandurang
Kadam and the investigation qua him is complete. It is further
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
stated that the period of 90 days would be complete on
9th December 2025 and, therefore, this Court may permit the
Investigating Agency to file the charge-sheet against the said
accused in the trial Court. It is also stated in the Praecipe that
"the petitioners" will get benefit of default bail if charge-sheet is
not filed.
2. This writ petition was listed on 10th, 14th and 22nd November
2025 and the interim order dated 29th September 2025 was
extended and remained in force. In the meantime, the order dated
29th September 2025 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 5137 of
2025 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16050 of 2025 was dismissed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the circulation was granted
on the basis of the Praecipe filed on behalf of the Investigating
Agency, the matter was again listed on 5th December 2025 but
could not be heard on that day on account of paucity of time and
it was stand over for 8th December 2025.
3. On 8th December 2025, a few judgments were cited by the
learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 and the matter was
adjourned for today to enable the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor to examine those judgments.
4. Referring to the Praecipe filed by the learned Public
Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Maharashtra dated 2 nd
December 2025, Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner no.2 (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.1)
submits that all applications before the Court should be made in
writing as provided under Chapter IV Rule 1 of the Bombay High
Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.
5. The learned senior counsel further submits that the
judgment in "Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India & Ors." in Writ
Petition (Cri.) No.60 of 2023 has been referred to a 3-Judge Bench
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
and the issue regarding grant of default bail to an accused when
an incomplete and truncated charge-sheet has been filed is
pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to an order dated
31st July 2025 by which the review petition against the judgment
in "Ritu Chhabaria" vide Review Petition (Cri.) No.124 of 2025 filed
by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned senior counsel has also
drawn our attention to the pending reference before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on a similar issue in Special Leave Petition (Cri.)
No.5724 of 2023 titled "Directorate of Enforcement v. Manpreet
Singh Talwar".
6. Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners has referred to and relied on the following judgments:
(i) The State of West Bengal v. Dharam Paswan, 2020
SCC OnLine Cal 739
(ii) Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15
SCC 67
(iii) Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 12
SCC 116
7. Mr. Jatin Sehgal, the learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 has tendered a copy of the written submissions and the list of
judgments. The learned counsel has referred to and relied on the
following judgments:
(i) State (NCT) of Delhi v. Rajeev Sharma, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 768
(ii) Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v.
Kapil Wadhawan & Anr., (2024) 7 SCC 147
(iii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil
Wadhawan & Anr., (2024) 3 SCC 734
(iv) Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
(2022) 13 SCC 652
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
8. However, at the end of the hearing, Mr. K.V. Saste, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor makes a request for
permission to file an application seeking permission of the Court
to file charge-sheet against the accused, namely, Mangesh
Pandurang Kadam.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor makes a prayer for
filing an application by 3:00 p.m. today.
10. This prayer is opposed by Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned
senior counsel for the respondent no.1.
11. It is admitted at the Bar that 90 th day of custody of the
accused shall expire today. Therefore, the permission is granted.
12. Post the matter at the end of the Board.
Later on :
13. An application seeking leave of the Court to file charge-sheet
against Mangesh Pandurang Kadam has been prepared and, a
copy thereof, is tendered in the Court.
14. Mr. K. V. Saste, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
states that this application is yet to be numbered because he
could not file this application through electronic mode.
15. The Associate has got this application numbered as Interim
Application (Stamp) No. 25114 OF 2025.
16. The said application which is extracted herein below reads
as under: -
"1. The Applicant states that the Applicant through the State of
Maharashtra is preferring the abovesaid Criminal Writ Petition
No.5137 of 2025 (u/s.482 of Cr.PC), inter alia praying therein to
grant permission to the Applicant for filing charge sheet before the
Competent Court in CR No. 105 of 2025 u/secs.406, 420, 409, 465,
467, 468, 471, 120 (B), r/w 34 of IPC registered with Property Cell,
Crime Branch, Mumbai since vide Order dated 29.09.2025, the
Hon'ble Court (Coram : Shree Chandrashakhar, CJ and Mr. Justice
Gautam A Ankhad, J.J.) was pleased to restrain the investigating
agency from filing the charge sheet until further orders of the Hon ble
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
Court. Presently, the investigation is completed in the aforesaid CR,
and the prosecution wants to file charge sheet before the Competent
Court, hence, the present Criminal Application. Hereto annexed and
marked as Exhibit A is the copy of the Order dated 29.09.2025 in
Criminal Writ Petition No.5137 of 2025. Presently, the investigation is
completed in the aforesaid CR, and the Investigation Agency wants
to file charge sheet before the Competent Court against Original
Petitioner No. 2/ Accused only. Hence, the present Criminal
Application.
2. The Applicant states that during the course of investigation, the
Respondent/Orig. Petitioner No. 2/Accused and others preferred the
aforesaid Criminal Writ Petition No.5137 of 2025 (U/s.482 of Cr.PC)
before this Hon'ble Court inter alia praying therein to quash and set
aside aforesaid FIR bearing CR No. 51 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025,
registered with Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai. Aforesaid Crime
transfer to Crime Branch, Mumbai in C.R. No. 105 of 2025.
3. The Applicant states that the Cri. Writ Petition No.2787 of 2025
came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr.
Justice A. S. Gadkari and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Aarti Sathe) on
19.08.2025. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the
Investigating Agency shall not file charge sheet. If not filed till today,
without prior leave of this Court. Hereto annexed and marked as
Exhibit "B" is a copy of the order dated 19.08.2025.
4. The Applicant states that the Cri. Writ Petition No.5137 of 2025
came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court (Coram : Shree
Chandrashakhar, CJ and Mr. Justice Gautam A Ankhad, J.J.) on
29.09.2025. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass on 19 th August
2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2025 be made effective in
this Writ Petition.
5. The Applicant states that since the investigation is completed
and Applicant/State wants to file charge sheet against
Respondent/Original Petitioner No. 2/ Accused only Competent
Court, hence, the present Criminal Application.
6. The Applicants crave leave to add, to alter, to amend, to
rescind, to delete and/or to modify any of the averments, as and
when required.
7. The Applicant craves leave to refer to, to add, to alter and/or to
rescind any of the aforesaid grounds and or prayers as and when
required.
8. No other similar Petition, Appeal or Application has been filed
before by the Applicant/Appellant in this case in any other Court
except this Hon'ble Court.
9. It is, therefore, humbly prayed:
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present Criminal
Application in abvoesaid Criminal Writ Petition and to grant permission
to the Applicant to file charge sheet before the Competent Court in
connection with CR No.105 of 2025 u/secs.406, 420, 409, 465, 467,
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
468, 471, 120 (B), t/w 34 of IPC registered with Property Cell, Crime
Branch, Mumbai against Respondent/ Original Petitioner No. 2/
Accused only;
（b）Any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the interest of justice.
10. And for this act of kindness the Applicant as in duty bound shall
ever pray."
17. Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned senior counsel appearing for
Mangesh Pandurang Kadam submits that the filing of charge-
sheet just before the expiry of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may
be, has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
learned senior counsel takes us through the history behind
enactment of section 167 in the Code of Criminal Procedure;
starting from 1898, and the reports of the Law Commission of
India. The learned senior counsel contends that the indefeasible
right of the accused to get default bail cannot be frustrated by the
Investigating Agency by proposing to file a charge-sheet only
against the respondent no.1 and, that too, because the period of
90 days would lapse on 9th December 2025. The learned senior
counsel laid a stress on the decision in "Rakesh Kumar Paul v.
State of Assam" (2017) 15 SCC 67. Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned
senior counsel for the respondent no.1 has also referred to a
decision by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.M. 1105 of 2019
titled "The State of West Bengal v. Dharam Paswan" and submitted
that the right of the accused to seek default bail cannot be denied
even where the application seeking leave of the Court to file the
charge-sheet remains pending before the Court.
18. On the other hand, Mr. Jatin Sehgal, the learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 would submit that the charge-sheet is yet not
on record and, therefore, it is premature to contend that the
charge-sheet is incomplete or tuncketed. The learned counsel
further submits that the respondent no.1 is trying to take benefit
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
of statutory bail on a misconceived ground that the charge-sheet
against him cannot be filed while the investigation against other
accused persons is pending. The learned counsel refers to the
decision in "Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan &
Anr." (2024) 3 SCC 734 to contend that mere pendency of
investigation against other accused persons does not vitiate the
charge-sheet filed against the accused who is in custody and such
a charge-sheet cannot be termed as incomplete. The learned
counsel specifically referred to paragraph nos. 20 to 23 in "Kapil
Wadhawan" which are extracted hereinbelow: -
"20. The bone of contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel
for the respondents in this appeal is that the appellant CBI having
kept the investigation open qua other respondents as stated in
Para 66 of the charge-sheet, the ingredients of Section 173CrPC
could not be said to have been complied with and therefore the
report/charge-sheet under Section 173 could not be said to be a
complete charge-sheet. It is immaterial whether cognizance has
been taken by the court or not. According to them the charge-
sheet filed against the respondents and others was a subterfuge
or ruse to defeat the indefeasible right of the respondents
conferred under Section 167(2)CrPC.
21. In our opinion, the Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami v.
Union of India [K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC
655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] has aptly explained the scope of
Section 173(2) : (SCC p. 716, para 76)
"76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of
police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The
Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the
investigation the police officer investigating into a
cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must
be in the form prescribed by the State Government and
stating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature
of the information; (c) the names of the persons who
appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the
case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been
committed and, if so, by whom (e) whether the accused
has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his
bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g)
whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v.
State of Bihar [Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar,
(1980) 3 SCC 152 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 660] that the statutory
requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be
complied with if the various details prescribed therein are
included in the report. This report is an intimation to the
magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence
the Investigating Officer has been able to procure sufficient
evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the
necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact,
the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion
of the Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned
he has been able to procure sufficient material for the
trial of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it
is accompanied with all the documents and statements of
witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more
need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is
also not necessary that all the details of the offence must
be stated. The details of the offence are required to be
proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later
stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing
acceptable evidence."
(emphasis supplied)
22. In view of the above settled legal position, there remains no
shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the report under
Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details
prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under
Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into
the cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able to
procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence
and the necessary information is being sent to the court. The report
is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and
statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). As settled in
the aforestated case, it is not necessary that all the details of the
offence must be stated."
23. The benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section
167 of the Code would be available to the offender only when a
charge-sheet is not filed and the investigation is kept pending
against him. Once however, a charge-sheet is filed, the said right
ceases. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to
pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section
173 is not taken away only because a charge-sheet is filed under
sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though ordinarily all
documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
charge-sheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents
are not filed along with the charge-sheet, that reason by itself
would not invalidate or vitiate the charge-sheet. It is also well
settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the
offender. Once from the material produced along with the charge-
sheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence
and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the
accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms
of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further
investigation qua the other accused or for production of some
documents not available at the time of filing of charge-sheet would
neither vitiate the charge-sheet, nor would it entitle the accused to
claim right to get default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet
was an incomplete charge-sheet or that the charge-sheet was not
filed in terms of Section 173(2)CrPC.
19. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision in "Jitul
Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat & Ors." (2022) 13 SCC 652, in
particular, paragraph no.26 which is extracted hereinbelow: -
26. The police have a statutory right to investigate a cognizable
offence under Sections 154 and 156CrPC. Sub-section (2)(i) of
Section 173CrPC provides that after the completion of
investigation, the police officer in charge of the police station
shall forward the final report to the Magistrate who is
empowered to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the
report. Before taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate
has to apply their own mind and is not bound by the conclusions
drawn by the police. In Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi [Pratibha v.
Rameshwari Devi, (2007) 12 SCC 369 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 399]
a two-Judge Bench of this Court has held that the High Court
can neither direct an investigating agency to submit the
investigation report before it nor can it quash a criminal
proceeding under Section 482 relying on such a report when the
report has not been submitted to the Magistrate. Tarun
Chatterjee, J. held thus : (SCC pp. 378 & 380, paras 18 & 21)
"18. In our view, the High Court has acted in excess of its
jurisdiction by relying on the investigation report and the High
Court was also wrong in directing the report to be submitted
before it. It is now well settled that it is for the investigating
agency to submit the report to the Magistrate....
***
From a bare reading of this provision [Section 173(2)(i)], it
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
cannot be disputed that after completion of the investigation,
the officer in charge of the police station shall forward the
report not to the High Court where the proceedings under
Section 482 of the Code are pending but to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of the offence on such police
report. Therefore, the High Court had acted beyond its power to
direct the investigating agency to file the said report before it in
the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code.
***
21. Therefore, in view of our discussions made hereinabove,
while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code, it is not
open to the High Court to rely on the report of the investigating
agency nor can it direct the report to be submitted before it as
the law is very clear that the report of the investigating agency
may be accepted by the Magistrate or the Magistrate may reject
the same on consideration of the material on record. Such being
the position, the report of the investigating agency cannot be
relied on by the High Court while exercising powers under
Section 482 of the Code. Accordingly, we are of the view that
the High Court has erred in quashing the FIR on consideration of
the investigation report submitted before it even before the
same could be submitted before the Magistrate."
20. Mr. K. V. Saste, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that the Investigating Agency has a right in law to file the
charge-sheet against a few of the accused persons or even one
accused person against whom the investigation is completed.
21. After having gone through the materials on record and in the
circumstances of this case, we have formed an opinion that the
application seeking leave of this Court to file the charge-sheet
against the accused, namely, Mangesh Pandurang Kadam is liable
to be rejected.
22. This is a mandate in law that the investigation in a case
should be completed within 24 hours. However, in cases where
the accused is arrested but the investigation is not completed
within such time and the accused is produced before the
Magistrate then under sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1974 the Magistrate may authorise the
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
detention of the accused for further custody, as he may think fit,
for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole. In any event, the
Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of an accused person
in custody for total period exceeding 90 days or 60 days, as the
case may be, where the charge-sheet is not filed within such
period because the investigation was not complete. In
"Enforcement Directorate Government of India v. Kapil Wadhwan &
Anr." in Criminal Appeal No(s). 701-702/2020, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to the judgments in "Rakesh Kumar Paul
v. State of Assam" (2017) 15 SCC 67, "Union of India v. Nirala
Yadav" (2014) 9 SCC 457, "Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of
Maharashtra" (2001) 5 SCC 453 and "Sanjay Dutt v. State through
CBI" (1994) 5 SCC 410 and held that the statutory provisions
must be in conformity with the Constitutional law. In the context
of right to default bail, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the right to default is a fundamental right and writ of habeas
corpus would lie in cases where a remand order is passed
mechanically or in violation of any law or is afflicted with the vice
of lack of jurisdiction, [refer: "Gautam Navlakha v. National
Investigating Agency" (2022) 13 SCC 542].
23. While declining the present application seeking leave of the
Court to file charge-sheet against the respondent no. 1, we are not
in any manner suggesting that the Investigating Officer has no
right to file a charge-sheet when the investigation is complete.
However, in the background of the legal propositions flowing from
the aforementioned judgments, we have come to a conclusion that
the investigating agency has no absolute right to file a charge-
sheet only for the reason that the statutory period of 60 days or 90
days shall expire in coming few days.
24. To recapitulate, Criminal Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2025
titled "Neelakantan Iyer & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr."
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
was taken up for hearing and the following order was passed on
19th August 2025: -
"1) Learned APP seeks time to peruse the record.
1.1) At the request of learned APP, stand over to 11 th September
2025.
2) Till the returnable date, investigation of the crime to
continue, however the Investigating Agency shall not file charge-
sheet, if not filed till today, without prior leave of this Court."
25. Thereafter, this writ petition was listed on 22 nd, 23rd, 26th and
29th September 2025.
26. On 29th September 2025, Writ Petition No. 2787 of 2025 was
withdrawn leaving the rights and contentions raised in that writ
petition open and to be agitated by the petitioners.
27. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 5137 of 2025 which was filed
by the accused persons, namely, Neelakantam Iyer, Mangesh
Pandurang Kadam and Suketu Viren Shah, the following order
was passed by this Court on 29th September 2025: -
" Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, the Public Prosecutor in-charge has
tendered a copy of the order dated 29 th September 2025 issued
under the signature of the Director General of Police, Maharashtra
State and states that the investigation in this case shall be
transferred to another officer for a fair investigation and the inquiry
against the present Investigating Officer shall be conducted by an
officer of the rank of Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime),
Mumbai.
2. Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners draws attention of this Court to the order dated 19 th
August 2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2787 of 2025. The said
order reads as under :-
"1) Learned APP seeks time to peruse the record.
1.1) At the request of learned APP, stand over to 11 th
September 2025.
2) Till the returnable date, investigation of the crime to
continue, however the Investigating Agency shall not file
charge-sheet, if not filed till today, without prior leave of
this Court."
3. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, the learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent no.2 raised an objection to grant of any interim
protection to the petitioner no.2 in so far as the filing of the charge-
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
sheet is concerned. However, on the Court's query, the learned
senior counsel on instructions states that the order dated 19 th
August 2025 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.2787 of 2025 was
not challenged by the respondent no.2.
4. In view thereof, following judicial propriety and discipline, we
are required to pass a similar order as was passed on 19 th August
2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2787 of 2025. Therefore, objection
raised on behalf of the respondent no.2 is rejected.
5. Let an order in terms of the order which was passed on 19 th
August 2025 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2787 of 2025 be made
effective in this writ petition.
6. Ordered accordingly.
7. In view of the facts and the subsequent developments, we
would observe that the Investigating Officer shall keep in mind the
mandate in "Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr." (2022) 10 SCC 51, "Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar & Anr." (2014) 8 SCC 273 and "Arnab Goswami v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors." (2021) 2 SCC 427.
8. Post the matter on 10th November 2025.
9. In the meantime, reply shall be filed by the respondent no.2.
10. The Investigating Officer shall produce a status report in the
sealed cover on the next date of hearing."
28. In the connected writ petition vide Writ Petition No. 5027 of
2025 titled "IIFL Finance Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra &
Anr.", a similar order was passed by this Court on 29 th September
2025. The order dated 29 th September 2025 passed in Criminal
Writ Petition No. 5137 of 2025 was challenged by the
complainant-respondent no.2 by filing Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No. 16050 of 2025. This Special Leave Petition was
dismissed on 13th October 2025.
29. Criminal Writ Petition No. 5137 of 2025 came up on Board
on several occasions but no application seeking recall of the order
dated 29th September 2025 was filed on behalf of the Investigating
Agency. There is no statement made in the present application as
regards the stage of investigation against other seven accused
persons. There is not even a statement made in this application
that the role played by the respondent no. 1 is entirely different
from the other co-accused persons. This is also pertinent to record
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
that the First Information Report was lodged way-back in the year
2021 and the present application has been filed seeking leave of
this Court to file charge-sheet only for the reason that the period
of 90 days would expire today, that is, on 9 th December 2025.
Quite apparently, this application has been filed to frustrate the
possibility of an order granting default bail to the respondent no.1.
Whether or not the respondent no.1 gets default bail is a different
issue but his right to seek default bail cannot be frustrated by the
Investigating Agency. The Investigating Officer has no indefeasible
right to file a charge-sheet against a particular accused while not
even whispering a word about the stage of investigation against
other seven accused persons and, that too, where the allegation
against all the accused persons are largely similar, that is, of
conspiracy.A mandate in law to conduct investigation and file
charge-sheet must be respected by the writ Court but, at the same
time, the Investigating Agency cannot be permitted to act in a
manner which frustrates the Constitutional mandate under Article
21 of the Constitution.
30. For the aforesaid reasons, Interim Application (Stamp) No.
25114 of 2025 is dismissed.
[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]
PRAVIN by PRAVIN
DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date: 2025.12.09
22:45:02 +0530
901-IAST-25114-2025 in Cri.WP-5137-2025.doc Dixit
