Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5720 (BOM)

SUREKHA PRANT PAWAR AND ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

BA/802/2026 · 2026-09-02

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

905 - BA - 802 - 2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 802 OF 2026 Surekha Prant Pawar & Anr. … Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Tabish Mooman (through V.C.) for the Applicants. Mr. Shrikant H. Yadav, APP for the State. CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 P.C.: 1. On 1st September 2026, the following order was passed: “1. This Application was argued by Mr. Tabish Mooman, learned Advocate for the Applicants through V.C. in the morning session. 2. Mr. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents-State had raised an objection to the maintainability of this Application in view of the order dated 3 rd July 2026 passed by this Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 111 of 2026. Upon the objection being raised and this Court having expressed its view of not being inclined to consider this Criminal Bail Application, Mr. Tabish Mooman, learned Advocate for the Applicants appearing through V.C. requested for a pass over to take instructions from the Applicants. 3. When this matter was called out at the time of rising of this Court, neither the Advocate for the Applicants is present in the Court nor Advocate Mr. Tabish Mooman is present through V.C.. 4. To afford an opportunity to the Advocate for the Applicants to appear, list this matter on 2nd September 2026, under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. 5. It is clarified that, if on 2nd September 2026, the Advocate for the Applicants chooses not to appear, appropriate orders after hearing the learned A.P.P. would be passed.” VRJ 1 VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Digitally signed by VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2026.09.02 17:25:13 +0530 905 - BA - 802 - 2026.docx 2. Today, Mr. Tabish Mooman, learned Advocate for the Applicants, on instructions from the Applicants, seeks leave to unconditionally withdraw the present Bail Application. This request is not opposed by Mr. Shrikant H. Yadav, learned APP for the State. 3. In view of the statement made by Mr. Tabish Mooman, learned Advocate for the Applicants, leave is granted to withdraw the present Bail Application. 4. The Bail Application stands disposed of as withdrawn. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) VRJ 2