Bombay High Court
RAZAK HABIB REHMAN QURESHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed off as Withdrawn
Holding
The Court permitted the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application and disposed of it, while keeping the objection on multiple applications open for future consideration.
Summary
The applicant, Razak Habib Rehman Qureshi, filed a third anticipatory bail application, which the State objected to on the ground that successive bail applications are not maintainable under the Supreme Court decision in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu. The State also contended that the ground of parity had not been raised before the Sessions Court that had earlier disposed of a similar application on 13 July 2026. The applicant sought permission to withdraw the present application and to file a fresh one before the Sessions Court. The High Court allowed the withdrawal, clarified that the objection regarding multiple applications remains open for consideration in light of the Supreme Court precedent, and directed that any fresh application be decided independently by the Sessions Court. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of. The order leaves the issue of maintainability to be examined in any subsequent application.
Issues considered
- Whether a third anticipatory bail application is maintainable in view of the Supreme Court judgment in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu.
- Whether the ground of parity should have been raised before the Sessions Court before filing the present application.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- multiple bail applications
- maintainability
- Supreme Court precedent
- withdrawal of application
- parity ground
Judgment
8-ABA-2401-2026.ODT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2401 OF 2026
Razak Habib Rehman Qureshi …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr. …Respondents
Adv. Murtaza Najmi a/w Adv. Asif Siddiquie, Adv. Farida Najmi,
Adv. Arefa Siddiquie, Adv. Moin Choudhary, Adv. Nancy Kanungo
i/b A. A. Siddiquie & Associates for the Applicant.
Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, A.P. P., for the Respondent – State.
PI Dilip Kale, D. N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, is present.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 31ST AUGUST 2026
P.C:-
1. Learned APP for respondent-State raised objection to the
maintainability of the instant anticipatory bail on the ground that
this is the third bail application filed by the applicant and it is not
maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of G. R. Ananda Babu Versus The State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported at (2021)16 SCC 725. He also raised
an objection to maintainability of this application contending that
although the ground of parity is sought to be raised before this
Court, the said ground was not at all raised before the Sessions
Page 1 of 2
st
31 August 2026
8-ABA-2401-2026.ODT
Court which has passed final orders on 13 th July 2026 on the
application for anticipatory bail.
2. In view of this objection, learned counsel for the applicant
seeks permission to withdraw the instant application with
liberty to file fresh application before the Sessions Court.
3. The applicant is permitted to withdraw the instant
Anticipatory Bail Application with liberty as prayed.
4. It is clarified that objection raised by the learned APP on
account of filling successive bail applications is kept open and
the same be considered in the light of Judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court referred above. Further, in case any fresh
application is filed before the Sessions Court, the Sessions Court
is at liberty to decide the application independently on its own
merits.
5. In view of this, the instant Anticipatory Bail Application is
disposed of.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
VDMokal/-
Page 2 of 2
st
31 August 2026
Checking your session…