1 28 BA 892.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 892/2026 (Parmeshwar Punjaji Pote Vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. S. Sheikh, Advocate for applicant Mr. N.B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant/State. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 27/07/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.166/2024 registered with Police Station Darati, Tq. Mahagaon, Dist. Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. The prosecution story in short is that on the basis of secret information, a raid was conducted after following due process in the agriculture field of the applicant/accused situated at Shirfulli Shet Shivar on 01/10/2024 around 23:15 pm, where it was found that the accused and applicant were cultivating Ganja and accordingly the contraband Ganja weighing around 62.812 worth around Rs.10,04,992/- was seized. Based on this, 2 28 BA 892.26 first information report was registered. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has raised two grounds; first is of delay in trial and second is that along with the charge-sheet, the CA report was not filed. The charge sheet was filed on 26/12/2024, he submitted that his first bail application was not considered by this Court on 04/08/2025, therefore on instructions, the permission was sought to withdraw the same which was accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. Therefore, again Criminal Application No. 148/2026 was filed, whereby on 23/03/2026, after hearing for some time, when this Court was not inclined to grant bail permission was sought to withdraw the application, and it was disposed of as withdrawn. 5. Accordingly, this is the third bail application filed by the applicant before this Court. It is necessary to mention at this juncture, that this is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that as earlier Advocate did not raise the ground of non-filing of C.A. report, accordingly new Advocate was engaged and he has raised the ground of non-filing of the CA report along with the charge-sheet. This practice 3 28 BA 892.26 requires to be deprecated for the reason that if Advocates are permitted to file the application one after another raising different ground on each and every occasion, then it would amount to multiplicity of the litigation. Therefore, it is expected that each and every ground has to be raised at the earliest. Since on both the occasions, the application was not entertained by this Court and has shown disinclination in granting bail to the applicant. Under such circumstances, it is to be presumed that all the grounds are raised by the applicant previously and even after raising those grounds, this Court has shown its disinclination. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that last order was passed on 23/03/2026 by this Court, wherein disinclination was shown and thereafter the application was withdrawn by the applicant. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain such application and accordingly it is rejected. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane