Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

GOPI KRISHNA @ SHIVAM SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Allowed To be withdrawn

Holding

The Court allowed the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application with liberty to file a fresh application, without addressing the merits.

Summary

The applicants, Pramodkumar Rajvanshprasad Chandan & Ors., filed an anticipatory bail application before the Bombay High Court. The State of Maharashtra, through its counsel, informed the Court of two antecedent criminal cases registered under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – CR No.1301 of 2025 under Section 318(4) and 3(5), and CR No.26 of 2026 under Sections 316(2) and 318(2). The applicants sought to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application and obtain liberty to file a fresh one disclosing the antecedent details. The Court permitted the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application, clarified that it had not examined the merits, and ordered that the interim application for intervention be disposed of. The applicants were directed to implead the victims as respondents in any fresh anticipatory bail petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether an anticipatory bail application can be withdrawn and a fresh application filed with full disclosure of antecedent cases
  • Procedural requirements for citing antecedent criminal proceedings under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • withdrawal
  • fresh application
  • procedural law
  • Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                                                                     902-ABA-1276-2026.DOC




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1276 OF 2026
       Digitally
       signed by
       SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL        Gopi Krishna @ Shivam Sharma                         …Applicant
PATIL Date:
       2026.10.07
       18:54:03
                          Versus
       +0530
                    The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent

                                                     WITH
                                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1880 OF 2026
                                                       IN
                             ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1276 OF 2026

                                                                         …Applicant
                    IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
                    Pramodkumar Rajvanshprasad Chandan & Ors.            …Applicants
                          Versus
                    The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent


                    Mr. Prateek, for the Applicant.
                    Mrs. M. R. Tidke, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                    Mr. Faiyaz Khan a/w. Mr. Akshay Bitale, Mr. Ashok Patil i/b. Mr.
                    Kunal Punjabi, for the Intervenor.


                                           CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                           DATED :     7th OCTOBER 2026
                    PC:-


                    1.       At the outset, Mrs. Tidke, learned APP states that there are

                    two antecedents against the Applicant bearing C.R. No.1301 of

                    2025 registered under Section 318 (4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya




                                                     Page 1
                    Sonali
                                                    902-ABA-1276-2026.DOC




Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) with Bilaspur Police Station, Chattisgarh

and C.R. No.26 of 2026 registered under Sections 316(2) and

318(2) of the BNS with R.A.K. Police Station, Mumbai, .



2.       In view of the said statement made by Mrs. Tidke, learned

APP, Mr. Prateek, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant

seeks withdrawal of the Anticipatory Bail Application with liberty

to file a fresh Anticipatory Bail Application by giving all the

particulars of these antecedents.



3.       Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed to

be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.



4.       It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits.



5.       As the Interim Application is filed for intervention by the

original Complainant, Mr. Prateek, learned Counsel appearing for

the Applicant states that he will implead the victims as

Respondents in the fresh Anticipatory Bail Application.




                                   Page 2
Sonali
                                                 902-ABA-1276-2026.DOC




6.       As the Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of, nothing

survives in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed

of.




                                           [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                 Page 3
Sonali


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.