Prashant Madhukar Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra

31@-aba-2574-2023.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2574 OF 2023 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2577 OF 2023 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2579 OF 2023 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2580 OF 2023 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2584 OF 2023 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2586 OF 2023 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2587 OF 2023 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2588 OF 2023 Prashant Madhukar Patil ...Applicant vs.

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay i/b. Mr. Vijay Jha, Mr. Raykumar Mishra and Mr. Abhishek Dubey i/b. Law Juris, for the Applicants. Mrs. Geeta Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent/State. CORAM :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 P.C.:

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

2.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has directly approached this Court invoking concurrent jurisdiction of this Court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Vishal Parekar ...1

31@-aba-2574-2023.doc 3.

The learned counsel for the applicant, on instruction, seeks leave to withdraw the applications with liberty to approach the Court of Session.

4.

In the applications it is averred that there is a technical difficulty in the applications for pre-arrest bail being expeditiously heard by the Court of Session as the Court of Session insists for verification of the application by the applicant who seeks pre-arrest bail and since the applicant in the instant case is already in custody in connection with two other first information reports against him, it is not possible for the applicant to verify the applications. 5.

If that is the case, having regard to the peculiar situation at hand, the Court of Session is requested to entertain the applications without the applications being personally verified by the applicant as he is stated to be in custody.

6.

In the event the applications are filed, the Court of Session is also requested to hear and decide the applications as expeditiously as possible.

7.

With the aforesaid direction, applications stand disposed. 8.

This Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and all the issues are kept open for consideration. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) Vishal Parekar ...2