Surinder Mohan Arora v. State Of Maharashtra
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4209 OF 2025 VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Surinder M. Arora
...Petitioner
by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2025.08.11 11:06:01 +0530
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
....
Mr.Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jayant Gohil, Mr.Sunil Humbre, Mr.Rohin R. Chauhan and Mr.Chinmay Godse for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.V. Gavand. Addl.PP for the State - Respondent. Mr.D.P. Awari, Sr.PI, EOW, Mumbai, Unit-II.
....
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
DATE : 6TH AUGUST, 2025.
P.C. :- 1.
We have heard the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP. We have perused the Petition paper books with their assistance.
2.
The Petitioner was before this Court as a Petitioner in 1/3
PIL No.6 of 2015. By a judgment dated 22nd August, 2019, the EOW, Mumbai was directed to register an FIR within 5 days. An FIR has been registered.
3.
Further developments have taken place before the Trial Court. The Protest Petition filed by the Petitioner in response to the notice on C-Summary Report, is pending in Misc. Application No.821 of 2020. Nine other persons have also filed their Protest Applications. The Petitioner is not added as a Respondent. 4.
In view of the above, the learned Senior Advocate submits on instructions from the Petitioner that the Petitioner will tender his Intervention Applications in these nine Protest Petitions. If the Intervention Application is allowed, these 9 Protest Petitions along with the Protest Petition filed by the Petitioner, would be considered by the learned Sessions Court dealing with Misc. Application No.821 of 2020, on their own merits and expeditiously.
5.
Considering the above, since the Petitioner desires to file an Intervention Applications in the 9 Protest Petitions, we would 2/3
only observe that the learned Court would decide the Applications, by giving an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders. Needless to state, such Protest Petition along with the Petitioner's Protest Petition No.145 of 2024, would be decided on their own merits.
6.
With the above directions, this Petition is disposed off. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) 3/3