Tausif Haju Sayyad v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

LSP 1 9 apl 481.25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No. 481 of 2025 Tausif Haju Sayyad ...

Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

...

Respondents.

Mr. Sandesh Manikhedkar i/b. Dipika Gupta for the Applicant. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State.

Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date:

2025.05.02 14:55:00 +0530 CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & S.M. MODAK, JJ.

LATA SUNIL PANJWANI DATE : 29th April 2025.

P.C.:

Learned Counsel for the Applicant after arguing for sometime, when we expressed our disinclination to grant relief in this application, prayed for unconditional withdrawal of this application. He sought liberty to prefer an application for discharge. He submitted that he had in fact filed discharge application before the trial Court but since it was not decided for about 8 to 9 months, he did not press for the relief under the said application and instead preferred the present writ petition.

2.

Considering that the discharge application was kept pending for about 8 to 9 months as submitted by the learned Counsel, he can be permitted to file fresh discharge application which will have to be decided as early as possible.

LSP 2 9 apl 481.25.doc 3.

In this view of the matter, we permit the Petitioner to withdraw this petition and file a fresh discharge application before the trial Court. If such an application is preferred, it shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by withdrawal of this petition.

4.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL,J.)