Chetan Mehta and Ors vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors — IA/1144/2026
Case under The Mah. Prev. & Eradication of Human Sacrifice Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practice, Black Magic Section 3. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 07th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM010143852026
e-Filing Number
23-03-2026
Filing Number
IA/6089/2026
Filing Date
24-03-2026
Registration No
IA/1144/2026
Registration Date
07-04-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL ( 9 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
07th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chetan Mehta and Ors
Adv. Lakshmi Raman
Nimesh Sheth
Adv. LAKSHMI RAMAN
Ayushman Mehta
Adv. LAKSHMI RAMAN
Respondent(s)
The State of Maharashtra and Ors
Prashant Mehta
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE
FOR ADMISSION
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 07-05-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Case Summary: IA/1144/2026 The Bombay High Court recalled its earlier order dated 23 February 2026 that had directed expedited trial proceedings. The court found that Respondent No.2 (Prashant Mehta) obtained the expediting order through fraud and dishonest conduct by making false statements about witness examinations and failing to notify the court that accused applicants had already been arraigned and should be made parties to the application. The court determined that Respondent No.2 deliberately misrepresented that three witnesses remained to be examined when they had been examined before process issuance, and subsequently used the expediting order to obstruct the accused's challenge to the process in Sessions Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: IA/1144/2026 The Bombay High Court recalled its earlier order dated 23 February 2026 that had directed expedited trial proceedings. The court found that Respondent No.2 (Prashant Mehta) obtained the expediting order through fraud and dishonest conduct by making false statements about witness examinations and failing to notify the court that accused applicants had already been arraigned and should be made parties to the application. The court determined that Respondent No.2 deliberately misrepresented that three witnesses remained to be examined when they had been examined before process issuance, and subsequently used the expediting order to obstruct the accused's challenge to the process in Sessions Court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts