Bombay High Court

DILIP DINANATH BHOIRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 9 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is disposed as infructuous because the relief sought has already been granted in the earlier revision order.

Summary

Dilip Dinanath Bhoir filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner’s counsel faced technical difficulties during the hearing, and the respondent’s counsel argued that the relief sought in prayer clause (a) had already been granted by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 81 of 2025, dated 11 March 2026. The Court examined the earlier revision order and found that it satisfied the petitioner’s relief. Consequently, the Court held that there was nothing left to consider in the present petition. The petition was therefore disposed of as infructuous.

Issues considered

Whether the prayer clause (a) of the writ petition is rendered moot by the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 81 of 2025 dated 11 March 2026

Subjects

writ petition
criminal appellate jurisdiction
petition disposed
infructuous
revision order
procedural dismissal

Judgment

                                                                     22-WP-586-2026.doc


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 586 OF 2026

       Dilip Dinanath Bhoir                                      .....Petitioner
                        Versus
       The State of Maharashtra                                  .....Respondent
                                     .....
       Ms. Deepa Bhardwal (through VC), for the Petitioner.

       Mr. A.A.Palkar, A.P.P, for the Respondent-State.
                                          ..…

                                          CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
                                          DATE   : 9th SEPTEMBER 2026


       P.C.:-

       1.         Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The

       matter was called out in the morning session, the learned Counsel for

       the petitioner was not visible on VC. The matter was kept in the

       afternoon session.


       2.         Again in the afternoon session, the learned Counsel appearing

       for the petitioner though visible is not audible. The learned Counsel

       appearing for the respondent points out that prayer clause (a) of the

       petition has worked out, inasmuch as, the learned Sessions Judge in

       Criminal Revision Application No. 81 of 2025 has passed a common


       Wakodikar                                                                   1/2
            Digitally signed
RUPALI      by RUPALI
            RAJESH
RAJESH      WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR   Date: 2026.09.09
            18:15:55 +0530
                                                           22-WP-586-2026.doc


order below Exhibit - 5 and Exhibit - 11 on 11th March, 2026.


3.      In light of the order dated 11 th March, 2026, nothing survives

for further consideration in this petition, hence petition is disposed of

as having rendered infructuous.


                                          (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)




Wakodikar                                                               2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…