Chetan Rajnikant Salve v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR

Digitally signed by ANANT KRISHNA NAIK Date:

2026.06.12 19:20:01 +0530 8.WP.3804.2024 .doc ANANT KRISHNA NAIK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3804 OF 2024 Chetan Rajnikant Salve

...Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1824 OF 2026 Chetan Rajnikant Salve

...Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

...Respondents

And Ramdhani S/o. Ramprasad Varma ...Applicant **** Mr. Sachin Suware a/w. Adv. Yogesh Dharra, Ms. Jaya Tiwari i/b. Mr. R. R. Varma for the Petitioner.

Mr. Dinesh J. Haldankar, APP for the Respondent-State. ****

CORAM

: M. M. SATHAYE, J.

DATED : 12th JUNE 2026 P.C.:

1.

On 22.09.2025, it was informed to the Court that the Advocate is trying to establish contact with the Petitioner for taking instructions and the accommodation was sought and it was granted.

2.

On 08.10.2025, nobody appeared for the Petitioner and the matter was adjourned.

3.

On 11.11.2025 following order was passed, granting last chance. "1.

When the matter was called out, the learned Advocate Mr. akn

8.WP.3804.2024 .doc Dharra for the Petitioner submits that they are trying to seek instructions from their client in the present matter, however, they have been unable to get any instructions so far. 2.

As a matter of last chance and at the request of Mr. Dharra, stand over to 2nd December 2025."

4.

On 04.12.2025, following order was passed recording inability of the Advocate to proceed with the matter for want of instructions and expressing desire to withdraw vakalatnama:

"1.

A request is made by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner since they do not have any instructions from the Petitioner, they have filed appropriate application for withdrawing their Vakalatnama. At her request, for taking appropriate steps, adjournment is granted. 2.

List the matter on 22.01.2026."

5.

Today, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that despite their best efforts, the Petitioner cannot be contacted and therefore, above interim application is filed by advocate seeking discharge. 6.

For all practical purposes, this is a failure to prosecute the Petition. Hence, the Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim/Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. 7.

In view of the dismissal of the Petition, pending Application is also disposed of.

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) akn