Anirudh Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2026 Latest Caselaw 4996 Bom

Bombay High Court

Anirudh Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 2026

2026:BHC-AS:22530
          Digitally
          signed by
          RUPALI                                                              6-APL-996-2026.doc
RUPALI    RAJESH
RAJESH    WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
          2026.05.14
          15:35:07
          +0530           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 996 OF 2026


                  Anirudh Vijay Kumar                               ...Applicant
                       Versus
                  The State of Maharashtra                          ...Respondent


                  Mr. Kushal Mor a/w Mr. Marmik Shah, Mr. Rohan Chauhan & Mr.
                  Vaibhav H. i/b Mr. Rohan Chauhan for the Applicant.

                  Mr. Dinesh J. Haldankar, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.

                  Mr. Pralhad Paranjape, a/w Mr. Ashish Venugopal, Mr. Sagar Shetty,
                  Mr. Akshay Naik, Mr. Aniket Gole, Ms. Meghna Vijan, Mr. Shubham
                  More, Mr. Priyansh Jain and Ms. Aayesha Thakkar for the Intervenor.


                                             CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 13th MAY, 2026 (VACATION COURT)

P.C. :

1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Kushal Mor for the applicant,

Mr. Haldankar, APP for the State and Mr. Paranjpe for the

intervenor/complainant.

6-APL-996-2026.doc

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant states that on

4th May, 2026, learned Special Court had passed the order thereby

holding that the arrest of the applicant was not in consonance with the

Judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Vihaan Kumar and

Mihir Shaha. The Learned Special Court, therefore, ordered the

applicant/accused to be released on execution of a P.R. Bond. The

learned Special Court had issued Show-cause Notice to the

Investigating Officer.

3. On the next date i.e. on 6th May, 2026, the Investigating

Officer had filed three applications. One of those application was an

application below Exhibit - 8 thereby praying for re-arrest of the

accused and the other was application below Exhibit - 9 thereby

offering explanation on his part for the lapses caused.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that there was no

order passed on application below Exhibit - 8 whereby the re-arrest

was prayed, however, the order was passed only on Exhibit - 9 which

6-APL-996-2026.doc

was in the nature of explanation and the said order which was passed

is impugned in the present application. The order below Exhibit - 9

reads as under :

"In light of the contents of the application and after going through case diary and as the accused is well represented from the date of his first remand the accused to surrender before IO within four days from today. Adjd. to 18-05- 2026 for Appearance."

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant states that

there is no power of review vested in the Special Court and as such,

the learned Special Court could not have directed the accused to

surrender. He states, on instructions, that, there is no separate order

passed on application below Exhibit - 8 which was an application for

re-arrest. He states that in absence of any order passed on application

below Exhibit - 8, such an order on application below Exhibit - 9 was

not at all legal and that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned

Special Court to pass such order. He, therefore, prayed to set aside

the order below Exhibit - 9.

6. Mr. Paranjape, learned Counsel for the complainant prayed

6-APL-996-2026.doc

to intervene in this matter. His prayer is granted. He is allowed to

intervene.

7. Mr. Paranjape as well as learned APP state that it was not

correct to state that, there is no order on application below Exhibit -

8. They both stated that in the roznama, there is specific mention of

all the three applications. The said roznama dated 6 th May, 2026

reads as under :

"Matter pertain to C.R.No.13. RA/151/2026 (NOB TOB) Learned APP for State absent. Advocate for accused present.

WAPI Preeti Hire attached Powai Police Station, present. Exh.7 Application for taking the matter on today board filed by APP. O - Allowed. Exh.8 Application for permission re-arresting the accused. O - Allowed. Exh.9 Letter for Explanation of notice filed by IO. Adjd. To 08- 05-2026 for Order on Exh.9."

8. They stated that in light of the aforesaid roznama, there

was indeed an order passed for re-arrest and that it would be wrong to

say that there was no order below Exhibit - 8. They state that in any

event, there is an order permitting the Investigating Officer to re-

arrest the applicant and as such, the said order below Exhibit - 8 is

6-APL-996-2026.doc

not challenged. To this, Mr. Mor, learned Counsel for the applicant

states that he has taken certified copy of the application below Exhibit

- 8, and that there is no such order reflected on application below

Exhibit - 8 though it is reflected in the roznama.

9. Be that as it is. Since today the roznama reflects that there

is indeed an order passed below Exhibit - 8 and that the applicant has

not challenged the same, the only course available is to direct the

learned Special Court to clarify the said position. As far as the issue in

hand is concerned i.e. order below Exhibit - 9, it is settled position

that there is no power of review vested in the Special Court. In

absence of this power, there could not have been a direction to the

accused to surrender. While passing this order, I make it clear that I

have not commented anything upon the order passed below Exhibit -

8. It is also settled position of law that despite the fact that the

accused is ordered to be released for non-compliance of the

mandatory conditions under Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused can very-well be re-

arrested after complying with the statutory requirements. Hence, in

6-APL-996-2026.doc

this premise, the order below Exhibit - 9 deserved to be stayed.

10. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 18 th June,

2026.

11. Till that time, the effect, execution and implementation of

order below Exhibit - 9 is stayed with a clarification that the learned

Special Court may clarify its stand on the application below Exhibit -

8. It is clarified that since this Court has not expressed any opinion

on order below Exhibit - 8, prosecution is free to act as per the orders

passed by the learned Special Court, after clarification is obtained.

12. Leave to amend to add the first informant as party

respondent is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

13. Stand over to 18th June, 2026.

SANDESH D. PATIL, J.