Bombay High Court

ANANT JAYANTIBHAI PATELversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 25 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is disposed of as the court is not inclined to entertain it after the police affidavit and the petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court precedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Anant Jayantibhai Patel, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging a matter that was later addressed by a police affidavit filed on 6 August 2026. The court, after reviewing the affidavit, decided it was not inclined to entertain the petition further. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without a substantive hearing. The petitioner’s counsel did not press certain prayer clauses, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 798). The court noted this reliance on the Supreme Court precedent in its disposal order.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition should be entertained in view of the police affidavit filed by the investigating officer
Whether the petitioner’s failure to press specific prayer clauses, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sujal Vishwas Attavar, affects the petition’s viability

Subjects

writ petition
criminal appellate jurisdiction
police affidavit
petition disposal
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

                                  Sbw                                                    28-WP-1863-2017.doc




                                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                     WRIT PETITION NO.1863 OF 2017

                             Anant Jayantibhai Patel                                 … Petitioner

                                      V/s.

                             The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                         … Respondents




                             Mr. Subhash Jha a/w Mr. Sumeet Upadhyay and Mr. Chetan i/by Law
                             Global Advocates for the Petitioner.
                             Smt. P.P. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State.
                             PI Ajitsing Rajput, Samtanagar Police Station, present.


                                                                CORAM :      A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                                             KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                                                   DATE :    25th August, 2026

                             P.C.:-

                             1)              In pursuance of an Order dated 21st July, 2026, Mr. Ajitsing A.

                             Rajput, Police Inspector (Crime), Samta Nagar Police Station, Kandivali,

                             Mumbai, has filed an Affidavit dated 6th August, 2026. In view of the

                             statements made therein, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition

                             further.

                             2)              Petition is accordingly disposed off.

                             3)              It be noted here that, on 21st July, 2026, Mr. Jha, learned


          Digitally signed
SANDHYA by SANDHYA
        BHAGU                                                                                                  1/2
BHAGU   WADHWA

WADHWA Date:
        2026.08.29
          14:04:51 +0530
   Sbw                                                28-WP-1863-2017.doc

Advocate for the Petitioner did not press prayer clauses (a) and (b) in view

of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr.

vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798.



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




                                                                            2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…