Bombay High Court
Supriya Vasant Kothari vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 June, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2025:BHC-AS:24367-DB
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4270 OF 2025
Supriya Vasant Kothari
Age-50 Years, Occu. Advocate,
Office at 210, 2nd Floor,
Amit Court Building, Near District Court,
Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005 .....Petitioner
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
Bombay High Court, P.W.D.
Building Fort Mumbai-400001
2. Jash Binani / Dhoot
Age-19 Years, Occu. Student,
R/at-A 2004, Panchasheel Tower,
Grant Road, Kharadi, Pune 411 014
3. XYZ
Age-46 years,
(Respondent No.3 shall be served
through Senior PI of Chandan Nagar,
Police Station, Pune
in CR No. 604/2024) .....Respondents
Mr. Priyal Sarda, for the Petitioner
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP, for the Respondents
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th JUNE 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th JUNE 2025.
Suresh 1/24
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
JUDGMENT :
- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
1. The Petitioner seeks to expunge the observations/findings/
remarks made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune against her in
the order dated 3rd January 2025 passed below Exhibit-9 and in
paragraph nos. 26, 27, 33, 50, 51(6) in the order dated 4 th January
2025 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 6957 of 2024.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that she is an Advocate
practicing in Pune Court and has 27 years of practice. She has also
completed her Masters in Law from Bharti Vidyapeeth, Pune. She
claims to be a counsellor on legal issues through Bhagini helpline and
was a coloumnist in Marathi newspaper "Sakal" for the period of
2007 to 2010. According to her, she also conducts lectures in colleges
and schools pertaining to gender sensitive issues.
3. Acccording to the Petitioner, she represented the Original
Complainant of CR. No. 604 of 2024 in the hearing of a Bail
Application, contesting the prayer of Bail made by the Accused in the
said C.R. The Bail Application was being heard by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune. The Bail Application was posted for hearing
before an In-charge Court on 2nd January 2025, since the Regular
Court was on leave.
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
4. It appears that the Petitioner filed a pursis below Exhibit-7
on 2nd January 2025 on behalf of the Original Complainant informing
the In-charge Court that the complainant does not wish to argue
before the In-charge Court. However, the Court declined her request.
The Petitioner alleges that she was not heard adequately and interim
relief was granted to the Applicant/Accused. According to the
Petitioner, she had requested the Court not to hear the matter, on the
instructions of her client's father that the nature of the case was
woman centric. Two orders dated 2 nd January 2025 and 3rd January
2025 were passed by the Court as follows:
"Order
Ld. Counsel Milind Pawar wanted to argue this bail
application, considering accused 18/19 years old in jail
since 14.11.2024 for ___ and false charges. Advocate
Supriya Kothari made oral submissions raising
objection to hear the bail application by this in charge
court. She was asked the reason. She stated that this
court has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to
accused No.2 and 5. She was asked whether any other
reason to which she said no. Then her objection was
turned down and parties were asked to argue. At this
juncture this pursis is filed. Hence recorded."
Sd/-
2.1.2025
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
"Order
Moved today at 12.50 p.m. Today the matter is posed
for order on the bail application. This court being in
charge, regularly decides the bail application of the in
charge Court. Till date none of the parties or Advocates
objected in this fashion. It seems that every attempt is
being made to see that this Court does not decide the
bail application. Hence read and recorded. Accused to
submit".
Sd/-
3.1.2025
5. Ultimately, the matter was argued and by order dated 4 th
January 2025, the Applicant/Accused was enlarged on Bail on certain
conditions. In addition to her remonstration to the order dated 3 rd
January 2025, she also has objection to paragraph nos. 26, 27, 33, 50
and 51 (6) of the order dated 4 th January 2025. The order of 4 th
January 2025 reads as thus:
"ORDER BELOW EXH. 1 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.6957
OF 2024
(Decided on 04.01.2025)
1] What one gets in Court is date after date, is the
feeling of a common man.
2] It is also said that wise should not climb the steps
of Court.
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
The scenario in the present matter resembles the above
two sentences.
3] Not only law but society expects speedy justice,
much less speedy disposal of the matters and speedy orders. In
the recent past, experiencing huge delay in deciding bail
applications, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has framed
guidelines and issued directives for the trial court prescribing
time schedule for deciding the bail applications. Periodically
data is being called from the Courts to monitor this situation,
at times coercive directions are being issued to police and
Judges, even at times consequences are given for failure.
4] Still it seems, there is not much happy situation.
5] There are multiple factors causing delay in
disposal of the bail applications or the matters before the
Court. Huge pendency of matters, less number of judges, skills
of individual Judges, environment at particular station,
leadership and back up system, complexity of the issues
between the parties, bulky record, egos of the parties, at times
the attitude of either or both parties to see the other
implicated in graver or false matters, the attitude to do
anything for this like creating false document on records,
attempting to manage the machineries by hook or crook,
insisting for early arrests without verification, etc. Beyond this,
some times the Advocates are instructed for such sole purpose
and some times the advocates also assist the parties in such ill
motive, by creating situation to cause fear psychosis in the
mind of Court to deter it from working without fear and
favour.
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
As such, the Judge alone cannot solely be said
responsible for the delay, at least all the times.
6] In such vitiated environment, the Court is
expected to stand to the expectations of law and society. The
prosecutor, the advocate for the accused and the advocate for
the informant/victim are supposed to be the officers of Court
to assist the Judge in discharging justice. When either of them
or both decide not to assist but to play otherwise, it becomes
difficult for the Court to achieve the expected outcome.
7] In order to see that trial is protracted, variety of
modes are adopted. One after other, application for discharge
ismoved in stead of moving all at same time. It is also observed
that the accused openly refused to get the charge framed,
refused to sign the plea, etc. and claim before the higher
Courts that trial is not commenced for longer duration and it
is the lapse of the Court. Some times, unnecessarily lenghy
cross-examination is conducted and unnecessarily lengthy
arguments are advanced just to kill the time of the Court. The
lengthy cross-examination at times include what is there and
what is not there in the exhibited documents. The lengthy
arguments include word by word reading of documents and
thereafter, explaining the meaning of same.
8] In some bail application, it is seen that on the very
first date prosecution and the police files reply, whereas some
times it is seen that multiples dates are taken by the police and
prosecution to file the replies. Some times, the prosecutors
argue on the earliest date and some times keep on seeking
adjournments on one or the other grounds. Where law
provides audience to the victim of crime while deciding bail
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
application, experience shows that some times the victim
avoids the service of notice, if served, then avoid filing of reply
at the earliest, seeks multiple adjournments, files the reply at
later stage and again seeks adjournment to argue the bail
application so that the decision on the bail application is
protracted to longer period in contravention of directives of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9] Some parties or advocates do not get satisfied
with these practices only. When all weapons are used and still
they want to protract, then they question the interest of the
judge in deciding the matters at earliest.
10] These are few of the illustrations for causing the
delay in disposal of the bail applications. If the judge tries to
expedite the disposal, many a times the circumstances are
created to make him feel that 'He is on trial'.
11] Mostly, it is matter of experience that neither the
senior Advocates at station nor the Bar Associations play active
role to curb such practices and it is left solely to the judge only.
One against rest all.
12] Though Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued
timelines and directions to the Courts, there seems no
directions to the Public Prosecutors that on the first date only
they should file reply and argue the matter, if Court time
permits. There are no directions to the advocates
representating either accused or informant/victim on similar
lines.
13] Vide the present application under Section 483 of
BNSS, the accused Jash Binani/Dhoot, aged 19 years sought
for regular bail in C.R. No. 604/2024 registered with
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
Chandannagar Police station for the offences punishable u/s
74, 123, 115 of BNS, 2023 & Section 8, 12 of POCSO Act.
14] Before touching the merits of the matter, the
circumstances and developments in the matter needs to be
noted.
(a) C.R. No.604/2024 came to be registered at
Chandannagar Police Station on 14.11.2024 against Jash
Yogesh Dhoot/Binani and his mother Tulika Binani. On the
same day the applicant Jash came to be arrested. On
19.11.2014 the co-accused Tulika Binani appeared before this
Court for exparte ad-interim anticipatory bail in the same
crime. Advocate Shri Milind Pawar was heard. That time,
Advocate Smt Kothari appeared for the informant and sought
oral permission to object. The application being exparte, i.e.
before issuing notices, her request was not considered and the
application was decided on its own merit.
b] On 02.01.2025 the present matter was placed
before this Court being in-charge of the POCSO Court. The
ld. Judge of the POCSO Court proceeded on leave from
02.01.2025 to 06.01.2025.
c] Ld. Counsel Shri Milind Pawar for the present
applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail since
14.11.2024, he is below 19 years old, he is arrested on
account of family dispute between his mother Tulika and step
father Yogesh. At this stage, ld. Spl. APP representing the State
made a submission that co-accused Tulika has disclosed the
identity of victim minor girl in the society, appropriate
offences are added in the crime, the investigation officer is not
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
present and so, matter may be adjourned. In view of
contentions raised by the applicant and considering the period
of his detention, his age and the directives of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the ld. Spl. APP was requested to go ahead with the
arguments. Ld. Spl. APP conceded the same.
d] When Advocate Shri Pawar for the applicant
started his arguments, Ld. Advocate Smt. Supriya Kothari for
the informant orally objected the hearing before this Court
(in-charge Court). She asked this in-charge Court to adjourn
the matter in the next week before the regular Court. She was
asked the reason for the same.
e] Ld. Advocate Smt. Supriya Kothari submitted that
this Court had granted ad-interim exparte anticipatory bail to
co-accused Tulika without hearing the informant and said co-
accused Tulika disclosed the identity of victim girl in the
society. It was made clear to advocate Smt. Supriya Kothari
that it was pre notice stage and so, it was decided accordingly,
so far as conduct of Tulika, it would be dealt as per law. She
was also informed that the present matter is for final hearing
and she can argue to her satisfaction.
f] In spite of above communication, ld. Counsel
Smt. Kothari objected for hearing of the matter before this
Court. In view of her insistence to adjourn, this Court
specifically asked her whether she has any other
objection/issue than raised above. She answered in the
negative.
g] In view of above circumstances, ld. Counsel Shri
Pawar for the applicant and ld. Spl. APP were requested to go
ahead with the arguments. During course of the arguments of
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
ld. Counsel Shri Pawar, ld. Counsel Smt. Supriya Kothari filed
pursis Exh. 7. The same objection was mentioned and it was
submitted that the matter may be referred to regular Court.
Whatever had taken place before the Court, till then was
recorded on the said pursis.
Again ld. Adv. Smt. Kothari submitted with
insistence that she won't argue. In view of such attitude, Court
asked Adv. Pawar and Spl. APP to proceed with and Court
would go ahead.
h] Thereafter, ld. Counsel Shri Pawar argued at
length for the applicant, ld. Spl. APP argued for State. Ld.
Advocate Smt. Supriya Kothari also argued at length on merits
of the matter.
I] After hearing all sides, the matter was posted for
order on 03.01.2025. After going through the record, before
proceeding for order, at around 12.40 p.m. another pursis
came to be produced before this Court vide Exh. 9. It was also
moved by ld. Advocate Smt. Supriya Kothari.
j] Besides the earlier objection, ld. Counsel Smt.
Kothari additionally mentioned in the pursis that this Court
disregarded ld. Spl. APP, this Court directed the advocate for
informant to argue the matter failing which order may be
passed and under these circumstances, she argued for the
informant unwillingly.
15] This Court regularly remains in-charge of the
POCSO Court. Whenever this Court is in-charge of the
POCSO Court, this Court listens the arguments on the bail
application and decides the same on the same day itself.
Neither Spl. APP nor any Advocate had earlier objected this
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
practice. Approximately 5-7 applications for bail one decided
on 02-01-2017 and 03-01-2017 also. Normally, such bail
applications are argued by the parties within 5-7 minutes and
almost in 90% of such bail applications, this Court
immediately passed orders running in one or two pages only.
16] In view of this second pursis Exh.9, this Court
recorded all the circumstances and also called the accused to
make submissions, without proceeding for order.
17] Advocate Shri Milind Pawar for the applicant was
not present on 03.01.2025, his junior filed pursis Exh.10, it is
submitted that the accused is in jail since 14.11.2024, the
advocate for informant is using various tac-tic to prolong the
matter and so, the bail application be decided as it is already
heard. He also orally requested to keep the matter on
4.1.2025 so that his Senior advocate Shri Milind Pawar may
appear.
18] Accordingly, the matter was posted on
04.01.2025. Around 1.30 p.m. ld. Counsel Shri Milind Pawar
for the applicant/accused filed pursis Exh.11. He submitted
that the bail application was posted for argument on
29.11.2024, 05.12.2024, 13.12.2024, 20.12.2024 and
02.01.2025. He further submitted that the conduct of the
informant and his advocate is to interfere with the proceeding,
leveling false allegations against the Court, false and baseless
pursis is filed by the informant, the matter was ready for
argument for long, advocate for informant played delaying
Practice to adjoun the matter and now she is levelling false
allegations against the Court. Strict action needs to be taken
against her by referring the matter to the Chief Justice of
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
Bombay High Court and Bar Council of Maharashtra and
Goa.
19] After passing this pursis, ld. Counsel for the
informant filed application Exh. 12 around 3.30 p.m.
20] Vide this application, the informant's advocate
submitted that the matter is posted for order, the advocate for
informant argued on 02.01.2025 under protest, recent
development has taken place, attention of the Court is needed
to prevent irreparable harm to the victim. In such
circumstances, the matter may be posted on 06.01.2025 before
the regular Court for re-argument.
No details on instances of so called recent
development were mentioned in application.
21] The submission of Advocate for accused and Spl.
APP was called on this application.
22] Ld. Spl. APP filed his say at Exh.13. It is
submitted that the prosecution has argued the matter at length,
the matter is fixed for order and appropriate order may be
passed.
23] Ld. Counsel Shri Milind Pawar for the
applicant/accused filed his say at Exh.14.
24] It is submitted therein that on 03.01.2025 the
informant has made serious allegations against the Court, it is
just threat to the Court, the informant is interested to delay
the proceeding, Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to decide
bail within 8 days, after closure of the matter for order, such a
request for re-argument before other Court cannot be made,
this constitutes dictating the functioning of the Court and
therefore, the matter needs to be referred to the Bar Council
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
of Maharashtra and Goa for professional misconduct, this
Court should issue notice of Contempt of Court,
25] In the aforesaid circumstances, it is seen that
though the objection raised by the Advocate for informant was
turned down, though she filed pursis on 02.01.2025 and
argued at length on merits without protest along with other
side and though the matter was posted for order, still ld.
Advocate for the informant went on moving additional pursis
dated 03.01.2025 and application dated 04.01.2025 just to see
that the matter is not decided.
26] As already seen, the applicant/accused is below 19
years age, he is in jail since 14.11.2024, the regular Court was
on leave till 06.01.2025 from 02.01.2025 and so, this Court
had heard the matter. It shows that any how without having
any valid reason ld. Counsel for informant wanted to delay the
decision. It may be forum hunting even.
27] The circumstances are being created to make the
judge feel himself to be on trial and refuse himself from
passing order.
28] If the judge proceeds to adjourn the matter, such
practices are encouraged and get flourished.
29] If the matter is decided and it goes in favour of
the accused, the judge has to carry the possible risk of false
complaint.
30] Some times the judges have taken the experience
of seniors guiding them not to touch such matters, keep on
adjourning and so, again such practices are encouraged. Some
times, there is chance of higher authority also asking in the
same fashion, why to make hurry, for few more days only the
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
accused would have landed in Jail, why to take tussle with
advocates, we cannot improve the situations, etc. and so on.
31] Under the aforesaid circumstances, every judge
takes his personal call as per his personality. Here, the post or
position or hieranctly of the officer does not play any role but
the response of the Judge is decided by his personality, his
attitute towards the system and society.
32] At the end, the ultimate beneficiary or sufferer is
the person whose liberty is curtailed. The personal liberty is of
paramount importance and it can not be allowed to be
curtailed by such practices. The culture of institute, gets
damaged causing threat to the fabric of society also.
33] In the matter in hand, as already seen, the sole
objection was not giving hearing to the informant while
granting exparte ad-interim anticipatory bail to the co-accused.
Besides this, there is no other objection.
34] In the aforesaid circumstances, though this is
incharge Court, as per its regular practice, and considering the
totality of the above circumstances, this Court is deciding the
present bail application on its own merits.
35] According to prosecution, the informant Yogesh
had victim girl aged 16 years from his first wife. The
informant Yogesh married co-accused Tulika approximately in
2019. The co-accused Tulika is having son Jash, the present
applicant from her earlier husband. After marriage, they co-
habitated together.
36] According to prosecution, the crime is committed
from 2023 to 24th September 2024. It is alleged that co-
accused Tulika had forced the victim minor girl to see adult
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
film 365 days, the applicant/accused Jash used to consume
drug, used to insist the victim minor girl to consume drugs, the
applicant used to bring girls at home, used to have obscene
behaviour with them in the vision of victim minor girl. In the
month of July 2024 in the marriage at Udaypur, Rajasthan, the
applicant Jash had pulled the shirt of victim minor girl and
kissed her.
37] On such complaint, the present crime came to be
registered on 14.11.2024. In spite of issue amongst family
members, having delay, without attempting even to know the
other side version, the applicant Jash is seen to be arrested
immediately on 14.11.2024 itself.
38] I have gone through the bail application, reply of
the prosecution, and reply of the informant/victim.
39] I have heard ld. Counsel Shri Milind Pawar, ld.
Spl. APP and ld. Counsel Smt. Supriya Kothari for the
informant at length.
40] The submission of ld. Counsel Milind Pawar is as
under :
There is delay of 11 months, victim is the sister of applicant,
the photographs at the marriage at Udaypur reveal the victim
and applicant enjoying the moments with all family members.
The accused applicant had already undergone drug test at the
instance of informant and both times they are negative. The
screenshots of chats between the victim girl and the
applicant/accused reveal the relationship of brother and sister.
There had been domestic issues between the informant and
coaccused Tulika, the informant wanted to sell out the
residential flat and so, false FIR is lodged.
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
41] The submission of ld. APP and ld. Counsel for the
informant in short is as under :
42] Explanation for the delay is given, the applicant
used to consume drugs, used to force the victim to consume
drugs, used to bring girls at home, used to have obscene
behaviour with them in the vision of victim, the co-accused has
disclosed the identity of victim girl in the society, the victim
had to change her school, photo is produced to show the
applicant consuming drugs, no family dispute is pending
between the parties in any Court, there is no relationship of
brother and sister, victim has stated everything in her
statement, her statement is consistent with the FIR, due to
tender age of victim there is delay in lodging FIR, there is
criminal antecedents against co-accused Tulika, after
registration of FIR, threats are given to the informant.
43] With these submissions, Ld. APP and Advocate for
the informant prayed for rejecting the bail.
44] As per the investigation report by the Appolo
Hospital, the Drug Test of applicant is negative. As per the
photographs, produced on record by the applicant, the victim
girl is seen happily with the applicant and other family
members. As per the Chat between the applicant and victim,
she called the applicant as brother and very close to her. She
has also begged pardon of the applicant. The Text messages
also reveal some quarrels between the informant and co-
accused Tulika.
45] As per Affidavit of informant, himself before
Family Court, he had very happy living with the applicant and
his mother.
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
46] At this stage, the Court is not expected to decide
the veracity of the allegations or the defence.
47] At this stage, the Court is expected to consider the
totality of the circumstances to see whether in the given
circumstances the applicant/accused needs to be continued in
detention or he needs to be set at liberty by putting some
conditions, if needed.
48] As already seen, the applicant/accused is below 19
years old. As per record, he appeared for examination during
this period of detention by the leave of Court. It shows his
academic background. There are no criminal antecedents
against the applicant. He is in custody for considerable long
period since 14.11.2024.
49] In the totality of above circumstances, the accused
needs to be enlarged on bail.
50] Advocate Pawar for the applicant vehemently
prayed for referring the matter to Bar Council and Chief
Justice for alleged professional misconduct and contempt. The
appropriate Authority to decide professional misconduct is the
Bar Council. Certainly, the conduct of ld. Counsel Smt.
Supriya Kothari cannot be said to be proper in view of her
almost dictating the Court not to hear the matter, not to pass
order, etc. The applicant being educated and from well to do
family and ld. Counsel Shri Pawar being senior in practice can
also move the Bar Council on their own. Under heavy
workloads, the Judge alone cannot be expected to take all
corrective measures including moving the Bar Council, etc.
51] Accordingly, following order is passed :
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
2. The Applicant/accused Jash Yogesh
Dhoot/Binani, age 19 year be released on bail in C.R. No.
604/2024 registered with Chandannagar Police station for
the offences punishable u/s 74, 123, 115 of BNS, 2023 &
Section 8, 12 of POCSO Act. on his executing P.R. and
Surety bond of Rs.25,000/-.
3. The Applicant/accused is directed not to make
any attempt to meet the informant or victim or to
communicate with them by any mode or manner till the
investigation is completed.
4. The applicant/accused is directed to mark his
attendance at the Chandannagar Police Station every
Sunday at 10.00 a.m. till completion of investigation.
5. The applicant/accused is directed not to visit the
place where the victim girl is residing and not to disclose
her identity.
6. Though ld. Counsel Shri Milind Pawar requested
for referring the matter to the Bar Council of Maharashtra
and Goa for professional misconduct, it is left with the
choice of applicant/accused or his advocate to move so.
The Court may take its own call in future if needed.
(Emphasis supplied)"
6. Mr. Priyal Sarda, learned counsel appeared for the
Petitioner and Ms. M. S. Bane, learned AGP represented the State.
7. Mr. Sarda, assailed the observations of the Additional
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
Sessions Judge, Pune in the impugned orders on the ground that the
observations made by the Judge are prejudicial to the Petitioner and
she acted only as per instructions of her client. He further states that
the Petitioner only pointed out the 'affairs of the case' to the Judge
and conveyed her intent that she did not want to argue before the In-
charge Court. He submitted that since the Regular Court was going to
be available in the next few days, there was no need for the In-charge
Judge to pass orders. He also submits that the Petitioner was not given
any notice of the observations in the order and was thereby denied a
fair chance to present her side before the Court. He finally submits
that the observations which are sought to be expunged are likely to
severely affect the Petitioner's reputation in society and more
particularly in Pune Courts. He thus, urged us to expunge the said
observations in the orders.
8. We have heard both the counsels and perused the papers
with their assistance.
9. By order dated 2nd January 2025, the Court appears to
have simply recorded the submissions made by the counsels namely
Adv. Milind Pawar representing the Accused in the Bail Application
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
and the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner herself brought to our notice
the pursis dated 2nd January 2025 submitted by her where in the last
paragraph she has specifically said that the Original Complainant does
not want to argue before the In-charge Court and will argue only
before the Regular Court. It thus, stands to reason that the observation
recorded in the order regarding oral submissions raising objection to
hear the Bail Application by the In-charge Court ,commensurate with
the contents of the pursis. The learned Judge appears to have fairly
recorded the submissions of the counsels without observing anything,
adversely affecting the Petitioner.
10. We have also perused the order dated 3 rd January 2025.
This order also seems to record the conduct of the Petitioner, since she
herself has continued to seek adjournment on the ground that her
client did not want the In-charge Court to pass any order. A plain
reading of the order indicates that after the Bail Application was
argued on 2nd January 2025, the Petitioner moved the Court at 12.40
p.m. on 3rd January 2025 requesting the Court to not pass any order
on the Bail Application. The Court has simply recorded its observation
that an attempt was made to thwart the Court from deciding the Bail
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
Application. There again does not seem to be any unwarranted
comment or remark made by the learned Judge which did not
commensurate with the pursis and oral submissions made by the
Petitioner.
11. We have gone through the paragraphs objected to by the
Petitioner in order dated 4th January 2025. From the documents filed
by the Petitioner herself before us, it is apparent that she/her client was
not inclined to either argue the Bail Application before the In-charge
Judge or want him to decide the same. To that effect, the Petitioner
filed the pursis and when the same was rejected, she mentioned the
matter on the very next day praying that the In-charge Court must not
decide the Bail Application. It is in this context that the learned Judge
appears to have recorded that the Petitioner wanted to delay the
matter or indulge in forum hunting.
12. From the contents of the paragraph nos. 26, 27 and 33 it
appears that circumstances were tried to be created to somehow
intimidate the learned Judge and prevent any order from being passed.
Paragraph No.50 records that, Mr. Milind Pawar, the opposing
counsel prayed for referring the conduct of the Petitioner to the Bar
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
Council and the Chief Justice for alleged professional misconduct and
contempt. The learned Judge has recorded the statement of Mr. Pawar
but, in fact refused to exercise that discretion. He has once again
simply recorded his observation that the conduct of the Petitioner was
insistent to the extent that she was almost 'dictating' the Court not to
pass any order. Having made the single observation, the Judge has
simply left it to the wisdom of the opposing counsel/Bail Applicant to
exercise the option of representing to the Bar Association.
13. All three orders, when viewed in their entirety, it is quite
clear that the Petitioner did not want the Bail Application to be heard
by the In-charge Court. There is no practice that a particular Bail
Application has to be heard by the Regular Court itself despite the fact
that the In-charge Court is ready to hear the proceedings. The present
matter entailed hearing of a Bail Application of a 19 year-old boy, who
was already in custody for a considerable time. We do not find any
infirmity in the decision of the learned Judge in hearing the Bail
Application expeditiously. Moreover, the remarks/observations made
in the orders dated 2nd January 2025 and 3rd January 2025 are in
conformity with the Petitioner's written pursis.
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
14. We find that the assailed observations in paragraph nos.
26, 27, 33, 50 and 51(6) are within the bounds of judicial propriety
and are not conclusive findings of the learned Judge. The Petitioner
had ample opportunity to explain her insistence for refusal to argue
before the In-charge Court. But she herself stated in her pursis and
oral submissions that she did not want the In-charge Court to hear the
Bail Application. In fact, she submitted before the Court that the
matter being 'woman centric', her client desired that the same be
heard by the Regular Court.
15. We find that the learned Judge has only recorded what was
argued before him and what was submitted by the counsels during the
course of arguments. The only observation that is likely to adversely
affect the Petitioner's reputation is that which appears in paragraph
no. 50 of the order dated 4 th January 2025, regarding the conduct of
the Petitioner, fit to be reported to the Bar Association. Ordinarily, the
Courts exercise restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks that may
harm a lawyer's reputation, however, the learned Judge's remark
appears to stem from the persistent insistence of the Petitioner in
evading the jurisdiction of the In-charge Court. In this view of the
902-wp-4270-20250J.doc
matter, although, we are not inclined to expunge the remarks/
observations assailed by the Petitioner in the present Petition, it is
open for the Petitioner to make an Application before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, for expunging the remarks by
tendering an unconditional apology.
16. If such an application is made, the Court concerned shall
decide the said application on its own merits, without being influenced
by our observations in this order.
17. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed off in the aforesaid
terms.
18. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/06/2025 17:04:52
