Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SANTOSH SURESH KAKADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court permitted the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application and disposed of it, without deciding on the merits.

Summary

The applicant, Santosh Suresh Kakade, filed an anticipatory bail application (No. 1138 of 2026) before the Bombay High Court. The State of Maharashtra raised a contention that an earlier criminal case (C.R. No. 162 of 2025) under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, had not been disclosed in the bail petition. The applicant’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application and to file a fresh one. The Court allowed the withdrawal, disposing of the anticipatory bail application and the related interim application without addressing the merits. It expressly left all substantive issues open for future consideration.

Issues considered

  • Whether the anticipatory bail application can be withdrawn at the applicant’s request.
  • Whether the non‑disclosure of an antecedent case under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, affects the pendency of the anticipatory bail application.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • withdrawal of application
  • criminal procedure
  • Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • high court

Judgment

                                                                                  914.ABA-1138.26.DOC




                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                           ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1138 OF 2026
             Digitally signed
             by PRACHI
                                                               WITH
                                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2026
PRACHI       PRANESH
PRANESH      NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
             Date: 2026.10.07
             11:19:29 +0530




                                Santosh Suresh Kakade                              … Applicant
                                V/s.
                                State of Maharashtra & Anr.                        …. Respondents


                                                            ______________________
                                Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, for the Applicant.
                                Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State.
                                Mr. Sachin Salunkhe (through VC) for Respondent No.2.
                                Mr. T. Munde, PSI attached to Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune
                                present.                         ______________________


                                                            CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                                            DATED : 6 OCTOBER 2026
                                P. C. :-

                                1.         At the outset, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-

                                State points out that there is an antecedent being C.R. No. 162 of

                                2025 registered with Alankar Police Station, Pune City under

                                Sections 316(2), 318(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                However, the same has not been disclosed in the Anticipatory Bail

                                Application.




                                                                 Page 1
                                PPN
                                                     914.ABA-1138.26.DOC




2.    In view of the said contention raised, learned counsel

appearing for the Applicant seeks withdrawal of the Anticipatory

Bail Application with liberty to file fresh Anticipatory Bail

Application.

3.    Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed to

be withdrawn and disposed of as such with liberty as sought for.

4.    It is clarified that this Court has not considered merits and

all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.

5.    As the Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of, nothing

survives in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed

of.



                                         [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                               Page 2
PPN


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.