SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 248693

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. GADKARIHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE
HASHIM BASHIR KALOLIKAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
WP/4474/2024



2025:BHC-AS:58178-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4474 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4165 OF 2025 Mr.Hashim Basheer Age: 41 years, Occupation: Business, Residing at 939- Peeramedu, Darul, Najad House, Peermedu, District: Idukki, Kerala- 685531. … Petitioner.

V/s.

1. The State of Maharashtra (Through the office of the Public Prosecutor, Mumbai)

2. Ms.Moorsalin Sayed, Age: Adult, Occupation: Nil.

3. Mr.Faizan Sayed s/o Sayyed Riyaz Darvesh, Age: 26 years, Occupation: Business.

4. Mr.Sayyed Riyaz Darvesh, Aged: 67 years, Occupation: Retired, All residing at: 241/2, Adarsh Nagar, SANJAY New Link Road, Near Zuben Wines, KASHINATH NANOSKAR Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai- 102.

Digitally signed by SANJAY KASHINATH NANOSKAR Date: 2026.01.22 _______________________________

20:35:38 +0530 Mr.Aditya Sharma with Mr.Siddharth Jaiswal i/b. Ms.Priya Maurya for the Petitioner.

Ms.Madhavi H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent-State.

_______________________________

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE , JJ.

RESERVED ON : 24th NOVEMBER 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : 24th DECEMBER 2025.

P. C. :-

1) Rule.

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2) By the present Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a direction that, the sentences imposed upon the Petitioner by the Metropolitan Magistrate (48th Court), Andheri, Mumbai in C.C.No.4268/SS/2014, C.C.No.4269/SS/2014 and C.C.No.4270/SS/2014 by separate Judgment and Orders all dated 4th January 2019, run concurrently. The Petitioner further prays that, he has been in custody since 27th September 2023, in the Sindhudurg Prison, and he may be released on bail.

3) Respondent No. 2 is the Complainant in C.C. No. 4270/SS/2014. Respondent No.3 is the complaint is C.C.No.4269/SS/2014. Respondent No 4 is the complainant in C.C.No.4268/SS/2014. All the complaints were filed, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Metropolitan Magistrate (48th Court), Andheri, Mumbai including C.C.No.4263/SS/2014. The Metropolitan Magistrate (48th Court), Andheri, Mumbai, by its judgment and order dated 4th January 2019, passed in each of the complaints, was pleased to sentence the Petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment of 8 months and to pay within 1 month of the order compensation to Complainant as stated therein, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

3.1) In C.C.No.4268/2014, the sentence is of simple imprisonment of 8 months with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Complainant therein within 1 month of conviction, in default, the Petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. In C.C.No.4269/SS/2014, the sentence is of simple imprisonment of 8 months with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- to the Complainant therein within 1 month of conviction, in default, the Petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. In C.C.No.4270/SS/2014, the sentence is of simple imprisonment of 8 months with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- to the Complainant therein within 1 month of conviction, in default, Petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. Mr.Arslan Sayed had filed C.C.No.4263/SS/2014 before the Metorpolitan Magistrate (48th Court), Andheri, Mumbai, wherein learned Court by its Judgment and Order dated 4th June 2019 has sentenced the Petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 months with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- to the Complainant therein within 1 month of the conviction. In default, the Petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.

4) Heard Mr.Sharma, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms.Mhatre learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Perused the papers and the entire record.

5) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the said complaints arise out of the same transaction and pertain to dishonour of diffe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top