Rajesh S/O Baban Ugale v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:13931-DB 1 cr.wp. 2009 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2009 OF 2024 Rajesh S/o Baban Ugale

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra And Another ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adv. R. D. Padaswan h/f Adv. A. D. Bhosale , Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent No. 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM

:

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE :

7th MAY, 2025 ORDER :

1.

Adv. R. D. Padaswan, learned advocate for the petitioner now seeks withdrawal of the petition upon instructions from the petitioner.

2.

The petition was filed for declaring the arrest of the petitioner as illegal and in gross violation of the fundamental rights, the further prayer i.e. the consequential prayer that was made, was that the remand order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shrigonda under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on 12.02.2024 as null and void and so also the further consequential remands those were made were also to be declared as illegal. The direction was sought for the release of the petitioner. We had called the papers and by an order dated 23.04.2025, we had seen those papers. The signatures of the accused [1]

1 cr.wp. 2009 2024 were taken on the register that is maintained as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also there is compliance of all the mandatory requirements. It was stated that the adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner to seek instructions in respect of the signatures of the petitioner, as shown in the documents, those were supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner. Now, after the instructions, the petitioner is seeking withdrawal of the petition.

3.

By making such allegations, the petition was filed. It appears that either the petitioner has not given complete information to his own advocate, or the advocate has not considered certain documents or had not taken proper instructions from client. Such petitions should avoided by any advocate. Only glorification of an issue should not be the motto behind a petition.

4.

We would have definitely imposed costs on the petitioner. However, since he is in jail, we are taking a lenient view. 5.

The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE komal_kamble/ [2]