Bombay High Court
KUMAR BHIMRAO JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Disposed off as Withdrawn
Holding
The Court granted leave to withdraw the writ petition and disposed of it as withdrawn, allowing the petitioner to raise the same grounds in a future appeal.
Summary
The petitioner, Kumar Bhimrao Jadhav, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash an order dated 18.8.2026 passed by the District Judge in Session Case No. 13 of 2023. The petition was listed, adjourned, and the petitioner’s counsel was absent when the matter was called. On 9th October 2026, the petitioner’s advocate sought leave to withdraw the petition, proposing to raise the same grounds in a future appeal if the session court’s final order proved adverse. The State’s counsel did not oppose the withdrawal and suggested it as the proper course. The Court, agreeing with the advocate’s request, granted leave to withdraw the petition and disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate procedure for withdrawing a writ petition after it has been listed and adjourned?
- Can the petitioner be permitted to raise the same grounds in a subsequent appeal after withdrawing the writ petition?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 227
- writ petition
- withdrawal
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
- BNSS
- session court order
Judgment
910-WP-762-2026 (CR).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 762 OF 2026
Kumar Bhimrao Jadhav … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
——————
Mr. Ajit J. Kenjale a/w. Mr. Abhijit Pasale for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nitin B. Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
Officer : PC/257 Amol Bhambure, MIDC Kupwad Police Station, present.
——————
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 9th October 2026.
PER COURT :
1. By the present Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (BNSS), the Petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (b).
“(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for record and
proceedings of the Session Case No. 13 of 2023 pending before
the Ld. District Judge-7 & Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli and
after perusing its legality, validity and propriety of the Impugned
Judgement and Order dated 18.8.2026 passed by the Ld. District
osk 1 of 3
910-WP-762-2026 (CR).docx
Judge-7 & Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli passed below Exh. 72
in Session Case No. 13 of 2023, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to quash and set aside;
(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the application of the
Petitioner below Exh. 72 filed before the Ld. District Judge-7 &
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli.”
2. On 6th October 2026, the following order was passed:
“1. This Petition was heard for substantial amount of time on
05.10.2026. At the request of Mr. Ajit Kenjale, learned Advocate
for the Petitioner, this Petition was kept back for taking
instructions from the Petitioner. At the time of rising of the Court
at 7:35 p.m., none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner either
physically or through VC mode and as such, by inadvertence, a
common date in this matter was given, listing the matter on
26.10.2026.
2. After realizing that the present Petition was kept back for taking
instructions from the Petitioner on 05.10.2026, the Registry placed
this Petition today on the Production Board at Serial No. 501.
3. When this Petition was called out, neither the Petitioner nor the
Advocate for the Petitioner were present in Court either physically
or through VC mode. Perhaps, in view of the common date given
in this Petition, the Advocate for the Petitioner is not present
today.
4. To afford an opportunity to the Advocate for the Petitioner to
appear, list this Petition on 09.10.2026.”
osk 2 of 3
910-WP-762-2026 (CR).docx
3. Today, Mr. Ajit Kenjale, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on
instructions from the Petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw the present Petition,
with liberty to raise all the grounds and contentions raised in this Petition in
the Appeal in the event the final order in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2023 is
adverse to the Petitioner.
4. This request made by Mr. Ajit Kenjale, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, is not opposed by Mr. Nitin Patil, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-
State, who, in fact, submits that the same would be the proper course.
5. In view of the statement made by Mr. Ajit Kenjale, learned Advocate for
the Petitioner, leave is granted to withdraw the present Petition, with liberty
as prayed.
6. The Writ Petition No. 762 of 2026 is disposed of as withdrawn.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.10.09
20:00:02
+0530
osk 3 of 3
Checking your session…