Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SUNIL BHIMRAO CHIKHALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal
Disposed off as Withdrawn

Holding

The court allowed the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application, disposing of it as withdrawn.

Summary

The applicant, Sunil Bhimrao Chikhale, filed an anticipatory bail application seeking relief under several sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959 in connection with a criminal case registered at Shirol Police Station. The State, represented by C. D. Mali, informed the court that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences could be up to seven years and that the investigating officer intended to issue a notice under Section 35(3) of the B.N.S., relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI. The applicant’s counsel subsequently moved to withdraw the anticipatory bail application, a request that was not opposed by the State. The court, noting the applicant’s desire to withdraw and the lack of opposition, granted leave to withdraw the application. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of as withdrawn.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act, 1959.
  • Whether the applicant may withdraw the anticipatory bail application at his request.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • withdrawal
  • criminal procedure
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
  • Arms Act
  • section 35(3) notice

Judgment

                                                                   921-ABA-514-2026.docx



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 514 OF 2026

Sunil Bhimrao Chikhale                                     ...Applicant
        Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Ors.               ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Murlidhar Kharat, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. C. D. Mali, APP for the Respondent – State.
_______________________________________________________________
                                CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
                                 DATE : 10th September, 2026.
P.C. :


1.       Heard Mr. Murlidhar Kharat, learned Advocate for the Applicant.


2.       By the present Application, the Applicant has sought for the

following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a) :-


           (a) The Hon’ble Court may kindly allow the Anticipatory Bail
           Application and enlarge the Applicant on anticipatory bail in
           connection with C.R. No. 250/2026 registered with Shirol Police
           Station, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur, for the offences punishable
           under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(1), 191(3), 115(2), 351(2),
           352 of B. N. S., 2023 and Sections 5 and 27 of the Arms Act,
           1959.

3.       Mr. C. D. Mali, learned APP for the Respondent – State, on

instructions from the Investigating Officer, Shirol Police Station, states

that the maximum punishment for the offences charged in Crime No.

250 of 2026, would be up to 7 years. He submits that the Investigating

Officer is in the process of issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the



Arjun                                 1
                                                                                921-ABA-514-2026.docx



                     Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the law laid down

                     by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendar Kumar Antil vs.

                     CBI1.


                     4.         Based on the statement made by Mr. C. D. Mali, learned APP, on

                     instructions from the Investigating Officer, that the Investigating Officer

                     would comply with the law laid down in the case of Satendar Kumar

                     Antil (Supra), Mr. Murlidhar Kharat, learned Advocate for the

                     Applicant, on instructions from the Applicant, seeks leave to withdraw

                     the present Application.


                     5.         The request made by Mr. Murlidhar Kharat, learned Advocate for

                     the Applicant, is not opposed by Mr. C. D. Mali, learned APP for the

                     Respondent – State.


                     6.         In view of the statement made by Mr. Murlidhar Kharat, learned

                     Advocate for the Applicant, leave is granted to withdraw the present

                     Application.


                     7.         Anticipatory Bail Application No. 514 of 2026 is disposed of as

                     withdrawn.


                                                                     (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

        Digitally
        signed by
        ARJUN
ARJUN   KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE   Date:        1    (2022) 10 SCC 51
        2026.09.15
        14:57:51
        +0530

                     Arjun                               2


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.