6 days ago
Bombay High Court Seeks Thane Police Reply Over Case Diary
The Bombay High Court looked at a police case diary in a legal matter.
The judges said the diary was not kept according to the law and police instructions.
They also noted that the police had not yet provided requested instructions to the court.
The case was filed by advocate Purshottam Khanchandani.
He is the husband of deceased activist lawyer Satita Khanchandani.
The court wants a senior Thane police officer to explain what happened.
The Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) must send a detailed response within two weeks.
The court will consider the matter again on September 11, 2026.
The Bombay High Court found shortcomings in Thane Police’s maintenance of a case diary.
The court said the diary appeared contrary to Section 172(1-B) of the Cr.P.C. and police circulars.
A division bench directed the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Thane, to submit a detailed reply.
The petition was filed by advocate Purshottam Khanchandani, husband of deceased lawyer Satita Khanchandani.
The matter will be heard again on September 11, 2026, after the court allowed two weeks for the reply.
- Who
- The Bombay High Court, Thane Police, and the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Thane; the petition was filed by advocate Purshottam Khanchandani.
- What
- The court sought a detailed police reply after finding alleged legal and procedural lapses in a case diary.
- Where
- The matter is before the Bombay High Court and concerns Thane Police.
- When
- The order was passed on August 21, 2026; the next hearing is scheduled for September 11, 2026.
- Why
- The court said the case diary appeared inconsistent with Section 172(1-B) of the Cr.P.C. and police directives, while requested police instructions had not been received.
Key facts
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Order date
- August 21, 2026
- Police authority addressed
- Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Thane
- Issue identified
- Shortcomings in case-diary maintenance
- Legal provision cited
- Section 172(1-B) of the Cr.P.C.
- Police directives cited
- Circulars dated December 6, 2018, and February 12, 2024
- Next hearing
- September 11, 2026
Quotes
Bombay High Court division bench
The division bench comprising Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata hearing the writ petition
“Perusal of Case Diary of the present case indicates that it is maintained contrary to Section 172(1-B) of Cr.P.C. and the Circulars dated 6th December 2018 and 12th February 2024, issued by the Office of the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State.”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Tamil Nadu Police Asked to Explain CCTV Retention Shortfall
Bombay High Court Orders CBI FIR Probe Into Salian Death
Maharashtra Rights Panel Notices Pune Police Over Custodial Torture
FIR after MHADA Konkan Board file on Thane plot missing
Bombay High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Disha Salian Death
Bombay High Court Reserves Order in Disha Salian Death Probe
Dahi Handi 2026: Date, Significance and Krishna’s Butter Tradition
Tribunal Restores Turf View’s Residential Status, Blocking Commercial Redevelopment
Indian Onion Prices Double as Karnataka Crop Offers Relief
Maharashtra Unveils Mumbai 3.0 Growth, Redevelopment and Technology Push
ICSI Adds Seven New Centres For December 2026 Exams
