Amardip Babaso Dhanawade v. The State Of Maharashtra

10-ABA-298-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 298 OF 2021 Amardip Babaso Dhanawade .... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent ______ Mr. Prashant Pandey a/w Ashray Dave i/b Shraddha Raut, for the applicant.

Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani i/b Wahab Khan for Intervenor. ______ CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE :26th FEBRUARY 2021 P.C. :

1.

This is a second attempt by the same applicant to seek order of anticipatory bail from this Court. On the previous occasion he had approached this Court vide Anticipatory Bail Application No. 15 of 2021. In that application following order was passed on 7/1/2021. "1. After arguing for some time, when I expressed my disinclination to grant relief, the learned counsel for the Applicant prays for unconditional withdrawal of this application.

2.Permission is granted. Application is allowed to be withdrawn unconditionally and is disposed of as such."

y.s.patil

10-ABA-298-2021.odt 2.

Inspite of this order, the applicant has again approached this Court for the same prayer. There is absolutely no pleading in the entire memo showing change in circumstances, after passing of this Order. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. On the previous occasion, the application was withdrawn "unconditionally" (emphasis supplied). Inspite of that again this application is fled and argued. This is waste of judicial time and is burdening the system unnecessarily. This practice must be curtailed. Therefore, I am not entertaining this application and imposing cost.

3.

Hence the following order.

ORDER

1.

The application is dismissed.

2.

The applicant shall pay cost of Rs. 30,000/- in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the trial Court shall take steps in accordance with law for recovery of the cost awarded.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) y.s.patil