Bombay High Court
BABLU RAGHUVEERSINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The bail application was dismissed for non‑prosecution in default due to the counsel's failure to appear as ordered by the court.
Summary
The applicant, Bablu Raghuveersingh Yadav, filed a bail application before the Bombay High Court against the State of Maharashtra. The court had previously heard the matter on 10 August 2026 and directed the applicant's counsel to appear on the next date. On 25 August 2026, the counsel failed to appear again despite a specific warning that this was the final opportunity. The matter was called for hearing at 11:43 a.m., and the counsel was still absent. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application on the ground of non‑prosecution in default, emphasizing the duty of counsel to be present when required. No substantive merits of the bail claim were considered, as the dismissal was purely procedural.
Issues considered
- What is the consequence of the applicant's counsel repeatedly failing to appear before the court as directed?
Subjects
- bail
- procedural default
- court attendance
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
11.BA.371.2026..doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2026
Bablu Raghuveersingh Yadav .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
None for Applicant.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
PSI – V. V. Patil, Cyber Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026
P.C.:
1. None for Applicant
2. Heard Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent.
3. On 19.08.2026, following order was passed:-
“1. The matter having been part heard on 10 th August 2026, this
Court has expressed its mind to the learned Advocate for the
Applicant. Today when the matter is called out, she is not present.
One final opportunity is given to the learned Advocate for the
Applicant to remain present in Court on the next adjourned date.
Learned Advocate is reminded that she is the officer of the Court first
and she is directed to remain present on the next date since she has
already argued the matter on 10th August 2026.
2. Stand over to 25th August, 2026. To be listed ‘First on Board’.”
4. Today, when the matter has reached for hearing at 11:43
a.m. in the morning session, the Advocate is once again not present.
5. In that view of the matter, Application stands dismissed for
non-prosecution in default.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
1 of 1
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.29
15:20:44 +0530
Checking your session…