Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3640 (BOM)

VIJAY MARGU VITKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

BA/1569/2026 · 2026-08-17

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

31. BA-1569-26.odt Amberkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1569 OF 2026 Vijay Margu Vitkar .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, Advocate for Applicant  Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State  Ms. Mallika Sharma, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2  Mr. Umesh Koli, PSI, Chaturshringi Police Station, Pune ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 17, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Nikam, learned Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 - Stat and Ms. Sharma, learned Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No. 2). 2. After this Application is heard threadbare and fully and after expressing my mind to Mr. Nikam, Mr. Nikam on instructions seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the present Application with liberty to the Applicant to approach the Court in accordance with law. 3. Reserving the aforesaid liberty which may be available to him in accordance with law, Bail Application is dismissed as withdrawn. 1 of 2 31. BA-1569-26.odt 4. Ms. Sharma, learned appointed Advocate appears for the Respondent No.2 – prosecutrix. She has ably assisted the Court. Equally, learned APP has also assisted the Court. 5. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Ms. Sharma, learned Advocate appointed through the Legal Aid to espouse the cause of Respondent No. 2 (prosecutrix). Her fees be paid by the High Court Legal Aid Services Authority as per rules on production of a server copy of this order and other compliances in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjyot Nitin Telharkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.1 and the Schedule under Regulation 18(1) of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1998. 6. Bail Application is dismissed as withdrawn. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 1 Judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 134 of 2024 2 of 2 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.08.17 21:00:49 +0530