Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

KAPIL SHRIMANTRAO PATILversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution

Holding

The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to appear.

Summary

Kapil Shrimantrao Patil filed a criminal appeal before the High Court of Bombay against the State of Maharashtra. The appellant failed to appear at the hearing on 1 September 2026, and had also not appeared on a prior date of 30 June 2026. The court observed that the appellant appeared uninterested in pursuing the appeal. No submissions or evidence were presented by the appellant. Consequently, the bench dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The dismissal was ordered by Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata.

Subjects

  • appeal dismissed
  • want of prosecution
  • criminal procedure
  • non-appearance

Judgment

                         DTG                                                          41-APEAL-34-2025.doc



                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34 OF 2025

                         Kapil Shrimantrao Patil                                    … Appellant
                                  V/s.
                         State of Maharashtra                                       … Respondent
                                            _______________________________________

                         None for Appellant.

                         Smt. P.P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
                                           _______________________________________

                                                     CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                             KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                                     DATE  : 1st September 2026

                         P.C. :

                         1)              None for Appellant when called out for hearing.

                         2)              Record indicates that, even on earlier occasion i.e. 30 th June

                         2026, none had appeared for the Appellant.

                         2.1)            It appears that, the Appellant is not interested in pursuing the

                         Appeal.

                         3)              Dismissed for want of prosecution.




                                         ( KAMAL KHATA, J. )                  ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

              Digitally signed
              by
DNYANESHWAR   DNYANESHWAR
TULSHIRAM     TULSHIRAM
GHUMNAR       GHUMNAR
              Date: 2026.09.07
              16:52:16 +0530




                                                                                                             1/1


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.