Sahil Rahu Gilani v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

Digitally signed by RUSHIKESH VISHNU PATIL Date:

2024.07.02 20:38:41 +0530 RUSHIKESH VISHNU PATIL 1/2 18 IA.2483.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2483 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2364 OF 2024 Pernia Sahil Gilani Nee Pernia Moin Qureshi ..

Applicant In the matter of Sahil Raju Gilani Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Maharashtra Through the Public Prosecutor

2. Pernia Sahil Gilani Nee Pernia Moin Qureshi ..

Respondents ...

Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar a/w Ms Pooja Jalan and Ms Mayuri Donwalkar i/b Pooja Jalan, for the Applicant. Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate, Mr. Parimal Shroff, Mr. D. V. Deokar, Mr. Sachin Pandey, Mr. Saurav Mehta and Vidhis'a Rohirn i/b Adv. Fazaa Shroff Garg, for the Petitioner.

Ms S. S. Kaushik, APP, for the State.

...

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : 2nd JULY, 2024 P.C:- 1.

A detail order was passed by this Court on 18.06.2024 while issuing notice to the Respondent No. 2. It was also directed that on the returnable date, the Respondent No. 2 shall remain present in the Court alongwith the child. Today, R.V.Patil

2/2 18 IA.2483.2024.odt the Respondent No. 2 has failed to abide by the said order and this is on the pretext, that an Interim Application No. 2483 of 2024 is taken out, requesting for rejection of the Writ Petition on the ground of its maintainability and concealment of the material facts.

2.

The learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner strongly objected to the Application and in the wake of the argument that has been advanced, as regards the maintainability of the petition, we deem it appropriate to hear the respective counsel on the said point. We intended to have the matter listed on day after tomorrow, but since the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has expressed some difficulties on his part, at his request, the Writ Petition alongwith the Interim Application is directed to be listed on 10.07.2024.

Since it is a grievance of the Petitioner which we have specifically noted in our earlier order dated 18.06.2024, that he has not been able to meet his child after her birthday on 21.04.2024, we deem it appropriate to direct the Respondent No. 2 to permit video call access to the father on every alternate day, commencing from tomorrow, at between 05:00 p.m. to 05:30 p.m.

The Respondent No. 2 must ensure compliance of the above direction.

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) R.V.Patil