Bombay High Court
SAHIL RAJU SAYYADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The duplicate appeal is dismissed with costs for abuse of the court process.
Summary
The appellant, Sahil Raju Sayyad, filed Criminal Appeal No. 682 of 2026 despite having already obtained regular bail in a related case and having a separate appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2026, decided in his favour on 17 August 2026. No counsel appeared for the appellant, and the State's counsel highlighted the duplicate filing. The Court observed that the appellant, through his advocate, failed to disclose the existence of the earlier appeal, constituting an abuse of the judicial process and causing unnecessary waste of court time. Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent powers to dismiss the duplicate appeal. The dismissal was accompanied by an order to recover costs of Rs.10,000 from the appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether a duplicate criminal appeal filed after a similar appeal has been decided constitutes an abuse of process warranting dismissal.
Subjects
- duplicate appeal
- abuse of process
- criminal appeal
- court costs
- bail
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40469
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
912 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 682 OF 2026
SAHIL RAJU SAYYAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. None present for the appellant.
2. Learned APP for the State drew the attention of the Court to the order
dated 17.08.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 2026, pointing out
that the present appellant has already been granted regular bail in connection
with Crime No. 861 of 2025, registered with Shrirampur City Police Station,
District Ahilyanagar.
3. It appears that the present appellant has filed two appeals. Criminal
Appeal No. 215 of 2026 has already been allowed by order dated 17.08.2026.
Even assuming that the present appeal came to be filed inadvertently, it was
the duty of the learned Advocate for the appellant to bring the said fact to the
notice of the Court. However, this has not been done. Such conduct amounts
912 APEAL 682.2026.odt 1 of 2
to an abuse of the process of the Court and has also resulted in wastage of the
valuable time of the Court and the prosecution.
4. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only). The said costs shall be recovered from the appellant.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
912 APEAL 682.2026.odt 2 of 2
Checking your session…