Geeta Kampani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms. Shraddha Achliya, Ms. Namita Maneshinde, for the Applicant in APL/790/2024 and for respondent No. 1 in APL/191/2024. Mr. Mudit Jain (through VC), Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Ms. Jasmin Purani, Ms. Kshitija Wadatkar, Ms. Vidhi Shah, Ms. Khushi Patharia, Ms. Gitanjali Ahire, for Respondent No. 2 in APL/790/2024 and Applicant in APL/191/2024. Smt. R S Tendulkar, APP for Respondent – State PI – Uttam Mane, Unit - 7, EOW, Mumbai. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 30th APRIL 2026 P.C.:
#2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. These applications were heard and posted for pronouncement of orders.
#3. On 27th April, 2026, the learned Counsel for the Applicant in APL/191/2024 and for Respondent No. 2 in APL/790/2024 SAINATH, PA 1 APL 790-24.DOC had mentioned the matter and requested the Court not to pronounce the orders, as the Applicant had came across a document which indicated that, there was compliance of the provisions contained in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
#4. Today, Mr. Jain the learned Counsel informed the Court that, the Applicant has applied for the certified copy of the said document, and the certified copy has yet not been furnished. Mr. Jain prays for further time to produce the document.
#5. Since the matter was extensively heard and posted for orders today and in view of the submissions that, after the matter came to be closed for orders, the Applicant came across a document which indicates the compliance of the provisions contained in Section 102 of the Code, 1973, by way of indulgence, this Court allowed the Applicant to make submissions, today. Thus, the prayer for further time to produce the document and defer the pronouncement of order, cannot be countenanced.
#6. Post the matter for pronouncement of order on 07th May,
#7. In the meanwhile, if the Applicant intends to produce a copy of the above referred document, the Applicant is at liberty SAINATH, PA to do so, on or before 05th May, 2026, and serve its copy to the 1 APL 790-24.DOC Applicant, in advance.
#8. Stand over to 07th May, 2026. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 102.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 30 Apr 2026. The bench was N JAMADAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.