Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Munib Memon vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 April, 2026

Author: G.S.Kulkarni

Bench: G.S.Kulkarni

                                                                                1 of 4                      902.APEAL.299.2022.DOC



                                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.299 OF 2022

                                  Munib Memon,
                                  age 38 years, Occ.Tailor,
                                  Flat No.24, 4th floor,
                                  Global Heights, Kondwa, Pune.
                                  (presently lodged at Mumbai Central Prison)                                      Appellant
                                                versus
                                  The State of Maharashtra                                                         Respondent

                                                                                 _______

                                  None for Appellant.
                                  Mr.Ajay S.Patil, APP, for Respondent
                                                                                 _______

                                                                        CORAM:       G.S.KULKARNI &
                                                                                     AARTI SATHE, JJ.
                                                                        DATE:        21st April 2026

                                  P.C.

1. The aforesaid criminal appeal was preferred by the Appellant-Accused no.5 under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 seeking enlargement on bail in connection with C.R No.9 of 2012 registered with the Anti Terrorism Squad Police Station (ATS), Mumbai (original C.R No.168 of 2012 registered with the Deccan Police Station, Pune) for the alleged offences under Section 307, 435 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act; Section 16(1)(b), 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as amended in MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO 2008; and under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of SURESHRAO THATTE THATTE Date: 2026.04.21 18:59:17 +0530 Organized Crime Act, 1999.

M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 21:51:24 ::: 2 of 4 902.APEAL.299.2022.DOC

2. By Judgment and Order dated 27th September 2022 rendered by a co- ordinate Bench, the appeal was dismissed, however, with the following directions in regard to the expeditious trial, which read thus :

"19. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the role of the appellant, the evidence qua him and the observations made by us as stated aforesaid, we also decline to consider the appellant's plea for bail on the ground of delay in commencement of the trial. However, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious to the right of the appellant to an expeditious trial guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Charges in this case were framed on 25 th May 2022. Accordingly, we expedite the trial of the appellant and direct the learned Special Judge, to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event by December 2023. All parties i.e. prosecution and defence to co-operate with the learned Judge in the expeditious disposal of the trial.

3. The proceedings are listed before us at the instance of Registry in view of the communication dated 5th March 2026 received by the Registry on 11 th March 2026 from the learned Principal Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, seeking extension of one year to decide MCOC Special Case No.7 of 2013.

4. Earlier there were two orders dated 21 st February 2024 and 12th March 2025 whereby extension of one year each was granted to enable the learned Sessions Judge to complete the trial. This is the third application seeking extension. The following reasons have been set out as placed before us under the office note and endorsed by the learned Single Judge (Mr.Justice Shyam C. Chandak), who has approved placing of the proceedings before the Division Bench. The reasons are required to be set out, which are extracted below :

(vii) Reason(s) for the delay in a (i) Total 7 accused represented by 4 concise manner different advocates
(ii) Matter is of bulky evidence and it is necssary to afford reasonable opportunity to the prosecution as well as the defense to lead their evidence and cross-

M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 21:51:24 ::: 3 of 4 902.APEAL.299.2022.DOC examination.

(iii) Applications preferred by prosecution and defence from time to time requires allocation of considerable time to hear both the parties and decide it.

(iv) As the witnesses are of old age and suffering from illness, evidence is recorded through VC, however, due to technical issues in VC connection, recording consumes time.

(v) Trial is scheduled on three day a week whereas on other week days this Court has to ocnduct trials in ACB matters.

(viii) Exceptional or unavoidable (i) Since the incidence is of Pune City, circumstances, if any, most of the witnesses are from Pune and affecting the progress of the many a times, the arrival of witnesses case. from Pune to Mumbai get delayed due to traffic situations, wherby the recording of evidence does not start in time.

(ii) Ld.Defence counsels for accused no.2, 4 & 9 withdraw vakalatnamas and time sought by accused to engage new Advocates. Trial could not be proceeded thereby during the period from 05.05.2025 to 16.6.2025 and 25.9.2025 to 13.10.2025 as accused no.4 & 9 were not represented by any lawyer.

(ix) Specific period of extension One year etension is prayed for. For prayed for, with reasons. recording evidence of 90 witnesses, recording statement u/Sec.313, hearing final arguments by both sides and delivering final judgment.

5. Considering that the Court had originally stipulated the time for completion of trial up to December-2023 and thereafter two subsequent extensions have been granted, there ought not to be any further extension to complete the trial. The trial would be required to be completed as directed by this Court by judgment and order dated 27 th September 2022 expeditiously as crime M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 21:51:24 ::: 4 of 4 902.APEAL.299.2022.DOC report itself is of the year 2012 and the Special Case itself is of the year 2013 i.e. about 14 years old.

6. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a final extension of one year is required to be granted and there ought not to be any further extension. Ordered accordingly.

7. This order be communicated immediately to the learned Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Court No.46, Greater Mumbai, who shall make an endeavour to routinely list the proceedings and conclude the proceedings at an earlier date and in any event within the extension as granted by this Court.

             (AARTI SATHE, J.)                               (G.S.KULKARNI, J.)




M.S.Thatte



       ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026                        ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 21:51:24 :::