This misplacement led to the bail application being heard out of turn, raising questions about the fairness and orderliness of court listings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Bombay High Court today witnessed an unusual procedural error involving the premature listing of a bail application for a prominent Shiv Sena (UBT) leader, Advay Prashant Hiray.
Justice Madhav Jamdar, presiding over the case, encountered an unexpected deviation from standard procedure when Hiray’s bail petition, which was initially slated for the Daily Main Board, was instead listed on the Daily Supplementary Board, a schedule reserved for urgent matters.
This misplacement led to the bail application being heard out of turn, raising questions about the fairness and orderliness of court listings.
The matter came to light on January 10, 2024, when Justice Jamdar’s court had a total of 38 cases listed on the Supplementary Board. Hiray’s petition, which was numbered 90 on the Main Board, was not addressed due to the day’s constraints. Subsequently, petitions listed between numbers 76 to 100 on the Daily Main Board for that day, including Hiray’s, were adjourned to January 16 and were expected to appear on the Main Board. However, Hiray’s petition found its way onto the Supplementary Board again, prompting Justice Jamdar to seek an explanation from the High Court office.
Nilesh Wanjari, a clerk in the Criminal Application Branch of the Bombay High Court, admitted to the oversight and extended an “unconditional apology” to the court. He assured that future preparations of the boards would be conducted with greater care to avoid similar mistakes. Justice Jamdar accepted Wanjari’s apology and his commitment to diligence, deciding against further disciplinary action.
The case in question involves Hiray, who served as the chairman of the Nashik District Central Co-operative Bank from 2012-2013. He is accused of sanctioning a loan to “Renuka Devi Society,” an entity led by his mother, Smita Hiray. The loan amount, initially set at Rs 340 lakhs, was later increased to Rs 7.46 crores. Authorities allege that the funds were not utilized for their intended purpose but were instead diverted to the account of Vyankatesh Society, leading to a default on the loan repayment and significant financial losses.
Hiray has contested these allegations, suggesting that they are politically motivated due to his shifting political allegiances. After his anticipatory bail was denied, resulting in his arrest, Hiray’s legal team has been seeking bail, with the hearing now rescheduled for February 29.
This incident underscores the critical importance of procedural integrity in the judicial process, reminding all involved in the legal system of the need for meticulous adherence to established protocols. The Bombay High Court’s handling of the situation reflects a commitment to transparency and fairness, even as it navigates the complexities of high-profile legal battles.