Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHANKAR EAKNATH SUTARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court allowed the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application and granted liberty to file a fresh application with full details.

Summary

Shankar Eknath Sutar filed an anticipatory bail application against the State of Maharashtra, but the application merely mentioned that there were four antecedents without providing any details. The State counsel pointed out this deficiency. The applicant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the flawed application and to file a fresh one with full particulars of the antecedents. The Court allowed the withdrawal and ordered the application to be disposed of, granting liberty to re‑file, while expressly stating that it had not examined the merits of the case. All substantive issues remain open for consideration in any subsequent application.

Issues considered

  • Whether an anticipatory bail application lacking details of antecedent offences can be withdrawn and a fresh application filed.

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • withdrawal
  • procedural deficiency
  • criminal procedure
  • Bail

Judgment

                                                                      22-ABA-2011-2026.DOC




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

       Digitally
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       signed by
       SONALI                ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2011 OF 2026
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
       2026.09.09
       10:59:03
       +0530        Shankar Eknath Sutar                                 …Applicant
                          Versus
                    The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent


                    Mr. Ghansham Jadhav, for the Applicant.
                    Mr. Shahaji Shinde, ‘B’ Panel Counsel a/w. Mr. S. G. Ghag, APP, for
                    the Respondent-State.


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


                    1.       At the outset, Mr. Shinde, learned ‘B’ Panel Counsel states

                    that although there are four antecedents against the Applicant, no

                    details have been mentioned in the Anticipatory Bail Application,

                    except stating that there are antecedents.



                    2.       In view of the above contention, Mr. Jadhav, 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 details of the antecedents against the

                    Applicant.




                                                     Page 1
                    Sonali
                                                   22-ABA-2011-2026.DOC




3.       Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed to

be withdrawn and disposed of as such by granting liberty as

sought.



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

and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.




                                            [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                                 Page 2
Sonali


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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