PUKHRAJ RAJMAL BORA vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — APPLN/1101/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: Contested--APPLICATION ALLOWED on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM030116512026
e-Filing Number
19-03-2026
Filing Number
APPLN/2948/2026
Filing Date
23-03-2026
Registration No
APPLN/1101/2026
Registration Date
23-03-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Criminal
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--APPLICATION ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PUKHRAJ RAJMAL BORA
Adv. Bora Satyajit S.
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Adv. P.P. FOR R/1 1123
MADHUKAR MADHAVRAO PATIL
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR
FOR ADMISSION - FRESH - CRIMINAL SIDE MATTERS
DUE ADMISSION -CRIMINAL
FOR ADMISSION - FRESH - CRIMINAL SIDE MATTERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION - FRESH - CRIMINAL SIDE MATTERS |
| 30-04-2026 | DUE ADMISSION -CRIMINAL |
| 23-04-2026 | |
| 17-04-2026 | FOR ADMISSION - FRESH - CRIMINAL SIDE MATTERS |
Orders
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) quashed criminal proceedings against Pukhraj Rajmal Bora, a retired judicial officer, for his participation in a 1993 Narmada Bachao Andolan protest. The court found that the 33-year delay in prosecution violated his constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21, especially since no overt acts were attributed to him and he had served the judiciary with distinction. The court held that prosecuting agencies failed to justify the inordinate delay and that the applicant could not be penalized for their negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) quashed criminal proceedings against Pukhraj Rajmal Bora, a retired judicial officer, for his participation in a 1993 Narmada Bachao Andolan protest. The court found that the 33-year delay in prosecution violated his constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21, especially since no overt acts were attributed to him and he had served the judiciary with distinction. The court held that prosecuting agencies failed to justify the inordinate delay and that the applicant could not be penalized for their negligence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts