Tag: Featured

The Bombay High Court held that informing a jailed accused about a request to extend the 180 day investigation period under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and letting them file a written reply, is not the same as bringing them before the court.

The jail officer, called the Jail Superintendent, passed on the information to the accused.

A single judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav, in its October 5 order, granted statutory bail to eight men. They were booked in a case involving the recovery of over 1.837 kilograms of mephedrone.

 The Court said the accused must be produced before the court, either in person or by video conferencing, when the application for extra investigation time is considered. This is a necessary safeguard.

Background:

The case involved the seizure of over 1.837 kilograms of mephedrone. On July 29, 2024, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) applied to extend the 180 day deadline for completing its investigation. On August 13, 2024, the Public Prosecutor submitted the report that the NDPS law requires. On August 14, 2024, the Special Court allowed the extension.

On July 31, 2024, the Special Court sent a letter to the Jail Superintendent of Yerawada Central Prison. The letter directed that the accused be told about the Investigating Officer’s application and be given copies so they could file a reply. The accused allegedly refused to accept the copies.

The chargesheet was finally filed on February 5, 2025. The accused asked for default bail. Their argument was that they were not produced before the Sessions Court, either in person or by video conferencing, when the extension application was considered and decided.

Extension Is Not a Matter of Right:

Justice Jadhav explained that the prosecution has no right to extra investigation time beyond 180 days. The Special Court can extend the period only if it is satisfied by the Public Prosecutor’s report.

That report must show how the investigation is progressing and give specific reasons for keeping the accused in custody beyond 180 days.

Justice Jadhav said an extension order directly affects the personal liberty of the accused, so the legal requirements must be followed strictly:

“The order of extension therefore is not a mere administrative continuation of the original period. It is an order which directly affects the personal liberty of the accused and permits the prosecution to continue the investigation and detention of the accused beyond the period fixed by the legislature. The statutory requirements governing such extension must therefore be strictly complied with. In the present case the filing of the Application for extension before expiry of the initial period of 180 days is not by itself sufficient to answer the question which arises for consideration,”

 Accused Must Be Produced:

On the need to produce the accused, Justice Jadhav said the August 14, 2024 order, as shown to the High Court, did not record that the applicants were produced before the Trial Court, in person or by video conferencing, when the extension application was considered.

 The Court said it is not enough that lawyers appeared for some of the accused, or that some accused gave their say. That alone does not prove the law was followed.

Justice Jadhav held:

“However with regard to the crucial requirement of production of the Applicants the order dated August 14, 2024 as presently placed before this Court does not record that Applicants were produced before the Trial Court either physically or through Video Conferencing when the extension application was considered. The fact that Advocates appeared for some accused persons or that certain accused persons submitted their say cannot by itself establish compliance with the law. A communication addressed to the Jail Superintendent and an opportunity to submit a written reply cannot automatically be equated with production of the accused before the Court. This Court is of the view that production of the accused before the Court at the stage of consideration of the application for extension is a necessary safeguard. The requirement is not an empty formality. The order of extension directly affects the personal liberty of the accused because it permits the prosecution to continue investigation and the accused to remain in custody beyond the period ordinarily prescribed by law. The Court while exercising such power must therefore ensure compliance with the procedure recognised by the Supreme Court,”

 Later Chargesheet Is No Cure:

The NCB argued that it filed a chargesheet just before the extended 180 day period ended. The Court did not accept this. It said a chargesheet filed later cannot by itself fix a defect in the very order the prosecution relies on to lengthen the legal time limit.

The judge said:

“The prosecution cannot derive an advantage from an extension order without first demonstrating that the order was validly passed in accordance with the statutory conditions and the binding principles governing such extension,”

Seriousness Cannot Override Bail:

The Court noted that the allegations are serious and that the prosecution’s concerns about the effect on society cannot be ignored.

The judge said that for regular bail under the NDPS Act, things like how much contraband was found and the limits in Section 37 are important. But they cannot be allowed to take away a legal right to bail when the conditions for that right have been met.

Justice Jadhav said he knew the prosecution had relied on how big the alleged offence was and how much contraband was involved. These points may matter a great deal when a regular bail application is heard on its merits. But they cannot decide whether the time limit for completing the investigation was validly extended. He said:

“However the present Applications are not applications for regular bail on merits. Applicants invoke a statutory right to default bail. In a case of default bail the principal consideration is different. The Court is required to determine whether the prosecution has completed the investigation within the period prescribed by law or has obtained a legally valid extension of that period. The seriousness of the offence cannot by itself enlarge the period which the legislature has prescribed for completion of investigation,”

Final Directions:

Justice Jadhav held that the right to statutory bail arises when the prosecution fails to meet the time limit set by law. He also held that the Trial Court’s August 14, 2024 extension could not be used against the applicants. The judge ordered:

“The right to statutory/default bail arises from the failure of the prosecution to comply with the time limit prescribed by law. The seriousness of the allegations cannot be used to cure noncompliance with the procedure governing extension of that period. In view of the observations and findings this Court is satisfied that Applicants have made out a case for grant of statutory/default bail. The extension granted by the Trial Court by order dated August 14, 2024 cannot be relied upon against Applicants for the purpose of defeating their statutory right in view of the failure to establish compliance with the requirement of keeping the concerned accused present before the Court at the stage of consideration of the application for extension,”

The Court allowed the applications and granted statutory/default bail to all eight applicants on a surety of ₹1,00,000 each.

Case Details: Bhimaji Parshuram Sabale vs Union of  (Bail Application 5481 of 2024)

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata observed that the Investigating Officer, prima facie, exceeded his jurisdiction  to help the accused and tried  to overreach the Court.

The case began with a petition asking for the investigation into a crime registered at Chembur Police Station, Mumbai, to be transferred. The petitioner was unhappy with how the investigation was being done and how slowly it was moving.

The Court recorded, “This is yet another case wherein the Investigating Officer (Mr. Anand Shahane) has exceeded his jurisdiction, prima facie with a view to help the accused person and has sought to overreach this Court.”

Background

The petition was filed on 30 June 2026. The informant and petitioner wanted the investigation transferred because they were not happy with its slow pace and manner. The petitioner’s case was that the investigation was being done in a most lackadaisical manner only to benefit the accused.

The Court recorded that the investigation began on 2 April 2026 but was still not complete even by 1 September 2026. The Investigating Officer then filed a ‘C-Summary Report’ on 15 September 2026.

This was one day before the petition was to be heard on 16 September 2026, and after the Court had expressed its mind on 1 September 2026.

The allegations

The case is about the caste certificate of Respondent No. 6. The Court recorded that his caste validity certificate, which declared him a Hindu (Mahar), had been declared invalid by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

The Supreme Court upheld that order declaring the certificate invalid. It was alleged that, on the same and/or similar facts, Respondent No. 6 then got a caste certificate saying he was a Buddhist (Mahar).

The FIR contained serious allegations under Sections 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

How the C-Summary Report was filed:

The Court then looked at the circumstances around the filing of the C-Summary Report. On 1 September 2026, the learned A.P.P. asked for time to take instructions from Respondent No. 4, and the matter was adjourned to 16 September 2026.

The Court noted that the investigation had started on 2 April 2026 but was not complete even by 1 September 2026. After the Court expressed its mind on 1 September 2026, the Investigating Officer acted quickly and filed the C-Summary Report on 15 September 2026, just a day before the hearing on 16 September 2026.

The Investigating Officer was present in Court on 1 September 2026 and knew the matter had been adjourned to 16 September 2026.

The Court further recorded that on 1 September 2026, the Investigating Officer did not tell the Court that the investigation was practically complete or that he was about to file a Summary Report.

Even on 16 September 2026, the filing of the C-Summary Report was not brought to the Court’s notice. So, no reference to the filing was made in the order dated 16 September 2026.

What the Court found in the report:

The C-Summary Report was filed under Rule 219 of Chapter V of the Bombay Police Manual, 1959, and ran to more than 500 pages. After reading it, the Court recorded that the Investigating Officer seemed to have simply repeated the findings of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in his conclusions.

The Court recorded that he had not done any effective investigation into the informant’s allegations about getting monetary benefits and other relevant matters.

The Court further observed, “A further perusal of record prima facie indicates that, the Investigating Officer in fact has not carried out any investigation and has deliberately taken all steps to protect the interest of Respondent No.6. This is wholly unconscionable.”

The State’s explanation:

The learned A.P.P. said the filing of the C-Summary Report may have been brought to the Court’s notice on 16 September 2026 because the then A.P.P. had written a letter to the Joint Commissioner of Police about transferring the investigation.

The A.P.P. also said that on 8 September 2026, on the orders of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, the investigation was transferred from P.I. Anand Shahane to the In-charge Police Inspector, Unit 6, Crime Branch, Mumbai.

The Senior Police Inspector of Chembur Police Station was told to send all documents to the newly appointed Investigating Officer.

The Court then recorded that, after the investigation was taken away from P.I. Anand Shahane, he immediately filed an application before the jurisdictional Magistrate asking for the return of the Summary papers.

He did this even without filing an application to withdraw the Summary Report before the Magistrate. The Court did not accept the State’s explanation.

Judicial record cannot be disputed:

On the question of what happened before the Court, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another.

The Supreme Court’s observations quoted in the order said, “Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena.”

The judgment also said, “Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation.” The principle noted was that what a judgment says happened in Court cannot be challenged by statements made at the Bar, affidavits or other evidence.

The Court further recorded that if a party believes something was  recorded wrongly  in a judgment, the right step is to point out the mistake to the same judges who wrote the record, while the matter is still fresh in their minds.

The order records the Supreme Court’s conclusion that “If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there.”

The application for withdrawal:

The learned A.P.P. also said that P.I. Anand Shahane had filed an application on 18 September 2026 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, asking to withdraw the papers of the C-Summary Report, but that the application had not been processed.

The Court recorded that this was yet another step taken by the Investigating Officer to favour Respondent No. 6 and overreach the Court.

The Bench observed, “We fail to understand as to how the papers of ‘C-Summary Report’ can be withdrawn once those are taken on record by the Magistrate particularly without there being an Order permitting withdrawal of ‘C-Summary Report’ as contemplated under the law.”

Investigating Officer’s Conduct:

The Court then looked at the Investigating Officer’s conduct as a whole. The Bench recorded, “It prima facie appears to us that, the concerned Investigating Officer has dishonestly taken the aforesaid steps only with a view to favour Respondent No.6 and none else.”

The Court further recorded, “According to us, filing of such ‘C-Summary Report’ is an orchestrated attempt only to frustrate the Petitioner’s remedy and overreach the process before this Court and nothing else.”

The Court also asked how the C-Summary Report could have been filed when the FIR had specific allegations under Sections 466, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Bench noted that the allegations in the FIR were clear and that the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the High Court and the Supreme Court had all passed orders about Respondent No. 6.

The Court recorded, “We are thus led to conclude that, prima facie, Mr. Anand Shahane, with a view to facilitate Respondent No.6, has filed the said ‘C-Summary Report’ before the concerned Magistrate and thereby frustrate the remedy available to the Petitioner.”

Directions:

Based on the facts and observations in the order, the Court directed that the matter be brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.

The Commissioner was told to file a detailed affidavit in reply to the petition, dealing specifically with each allegation and with the points recorded in the order.

The Court also told the Commissioner not to hand over the task of filing the affidavit to any junior officer, and to read the entire record before filing the reply.

The learned A.P.P. stated that the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai would file the affidavit in reply within three weeks. The Court accepted this statement and directed that the matter be listed on 21 October 2026.

Case Details: Chitra Salunke V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors, WRIT PETITION NO. 3390 OF 2026

The Bombay High Court at Goa has questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the manner in which voters who have changed their residential addresses are being treated during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A Division Bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar raised concerns about  the rejection of Form 8 applications submitted by voters seeking to update their addresses. The Court observed that these voters could be left with no real remedy if their names are removed from the draft electoral roll and they are then stopped from using Form 8 to update their details.

The Case:

The issue came up in a petition filed by Paresh Salgaonkar and members of his family. Their names were left out of the electoral roll during the SIR exercise, even though they had submitted Form 8 applications to change their address.

Court Questions Purpose of SIR:

The Bench asked what the main goal of the SIR exercise really is. It noted that the exercise was meant to find out whether the people on the electoral rolls are Indian citizens, and therefore have the right to stay on the rolls.

The Court said:

“Entire SIR procedure was on the basis that had to find out whether an elector is actually an Indian citizen or not. The basis of the SIR was not to see whether the voter is there or not. It is to find out whether he is an Indian citizen or not.’’

Keeping this in mind, the Court asked a question: if citizens are taken off the electoral roll during the revision, does that not defeat the whole purpose of  the SIR? 

The Bench asked the ECI:

“Read the judgment, it says ECI has an obligation to ensure that all Indian citizens are on the list… If citizens are excluded what will we do with your SIR? If citizens are being removed from the list then what is the purpose of this entire SIR process then?”

ECI’s Response:

Form 8 is used by an existing voter to ask for a correction of details or a change of address. However, the ECI told the Court that voters who had not submitted the required enumeration form during the SIR had to follow a different process if their names were missing from the draft roll.

Advocate Gauresh Agni, appearing for the ECI, said that the SIR guidelines require voters to submit the enumeration form along with Form 8 to get their address changed. If the enumeration form had not been submitted, the voter would have to use Form 6, which is meant for adding a name to the electoral roll.

The Court, however, asked whether the Supreme Court’s directions on SIR really required Form 6 to be used in place of the enumeration process.

The Bench observed:

“So, will this subserve the purpose by a Form 6 or a Form 8? Judgment [of the Supreme Court on Bihar SIR nowhere says that the manner of doing this is going to be by Form 6. Law is either by the legislature or if it is delegated, or a rule-making power.”

The Court also pointed to the ECI’s constitutional duty to make sure that eligible citizens are not denied their right to be represented on the electoral rolls.

It asked:

“If, by this process, citizens are excluded, then how do we read this mandate?”

Court Flags Impossible Situation For Voters:

The Bench asked how a person who has only moved to a new home could be made to submit Form 6, since that form requires a declaration that the person is not already registered elsewhere.

The Court pointed out that a voter who submits Form 8 is told the application cannot be processed without the enumeration form. But if the voter submits Form 6, they would have to make a declaration that does not correctly describe their situation.

The Bench observed:

“If a voter comes to you with Form 8, saying he has changed his address you just cannot tell that person that look your name isn’t included in the draft roll now you will have to fill in Form 6 (inclusion of new voter). Your enumeration form, basically has a declaration that a person continues to live in the address as mentioned in the existing voters list. But consider, if someone has changed their residence, can you compel the person to make a false declaration by submitting that pre-filled enumeration? Why can’t that person simply give a Form 8 because anyway, his name is there in the existing list he just wants to get his address changed.. Why compel enumeration form?”

Court Rejects Draft Roll Argument:

The ECI’s lawyer argued that under Section 25(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the SIR involves preparing electoral rolls from scratch. This means the names of people who do not submit enumeration forms would not appear in the draft roll.

He also said that notices were displayed publicly because the ECI may not have updated the addresses of voters who had moved.

The Bench, however, did not accept this reasoning.

“Draft role will not come in picture until the SIR is complete. Here the SIR is not complete. You are in the process.” the court observed.

The bench will continue hearing the matter on October 6.

Case details: Paresh Salgaonkar & 5 Ors v. The State of Goa (WP No. 732 of 2026)

The Bombay High Court has temporarily halted the bail granted to dismissed police officer Sachin Waze in the Antilia bomb scare case.  A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale stayed  the special court’s order that granted him bail.

 NIA’s Appeal:

The bench passed this  interim order while hearing an appeal  by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is  challenging the  bail to Waze.

Judges Step Aside:

Earlier, three judges of the Bombay High Court had recused themselves from hearing the NIA’s appeal. After that, the appeal was given to the bench of Justice Kulkarni and Justice Gokhale.

For now, the High Court has stopped the special court’s bail order from taking effect. The matter will be heard again in the first week of October.

The Case:

Waze, a dismissed Mumbai Police officer, is being prosecuted for the Antilia bomb scare case and for the murder of businessman Mansukh Hiran.

The special court had first granted him bail, and the NIA then went to the High Court asking it to step in. The stay will stay in place until the court considers the NIA’s appeal further.

Case Detail: National Investigation Agency (NIA) v. Sachin Hindurao Waze

On Monday (September 28), the Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court declined to grant an urgent hearing to a writ petition. The petition questions 14 actions allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. It says this was done even though the other two Election Commissioners, Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, reportedly objected.

What the Petition Says:

The petition was filed through Advocate Asim Sarode. It raises concerns about how decisions were allegedly taken on electoral rolls, voter registration, the electoral-roll database and the work of Electoral Registration Officers. It argues that these decisions raise serious questions about following the law and about constitutional governance.

Why the Bench Declined:

The petition was mentioned before a division bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and Justice Neeraj Dhote. The bench did not take it up immediately, saying its roster was too busy.

What It Seeks to Cancel:

The petition asks the court to cancel 14 administrative orders and actions issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the past ten months. A recent report by The Indian Express said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected to these matters.

Objections Raised:

According to the report, the objections covered several issues including:

1) Changes to Form 6, which is used to register new voters

2) Deleting and restoring voter names

3) Appeals against orders that restored voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process

4) How the electoral roll database is handled and who can access it.

Decisions Without Approval:

The report also said Sandhu and Joshi objected to some decisions allegedly being taken without their knowledge or approval. These included what they called “unauthorised and illegal” changes to Form 6, and the gradual centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database.

The two Election Commissioners also reportedly went to the Cabinet Secretary about changes in how work on the IT systems used for electoral rolls was assigned. They alleged these changes were made without their knowledge.

“The instant PIL challenges the manner in which decisions concerning the preparation, revision and maintenance of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of elections in the country have allegedly been prepared and implemented by the ECI, despite recorded objections by Sandhu and Joshi, particularly concerning voter registration, electoral- roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers,” the plea states.

Demands:

The petitioners want the court to cancel the 14 disputed actions. They also want the names of deleted voters restored.

They argue that the alleged actions amount to a “systematic erosion of constitutional norms” on managing electoral rolls. They say this affects their fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 14 and their constitutional right to vote through adult suffrage under Article 326.

The petitioners have asked for several directions including:

a)Quashing the 14 disputed actions

b)Stopping the SIR process in Maharashtra

c)Restoring deleted voter names

d)Postponing the coming State Assembly Elections until legally compliant electoral rolls are prepared and approved

e)Setting up an independent Judicial Committee to investigate the alleged irregularities.

The plea also argues that while handling electoral rolls, the ECI must take a realistic, pragmatic and flexible approach so that the country continues to be governed democratically.

Next Hearing:

The matter is likely to be taken up on October 22.

Case Details: Prathamesh Govankar & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Ors