Firoza Abdul Mabood Khan Wife Of Shri Abdul Mabood Khan v. Sr Inspector Of Police And ANR
16-ba-3029-2025 with connected.doc Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.3029 OF 2025 Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date:
2025.08.25 17:24:11 +0530 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2881 OF 2025 SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Firoza Abdul Mabood Khan Wife of Shri Abdul Mabood Khan ... Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
... Respondents WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO.2971 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2880 OF 2025 Firoza Abdul Mabood Khan Wife of Shri Abdul Mabood Khan ... Applicant V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
... Respondents Ms. Shabnam Latiwala with Firoza Khan for the Applicant.
Mr. Viral Rathod i/b Farzana Khan for the Intervener. Ms. Supriya I. Kak, APP for the State - respondent. Mr. Sanjay A. Davane, PI, Navpada Police Station, Thane City is present.
CORAM
: AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 25, 2025 P.C.:
1.
At the very outset, it is noticed that at the inception of both these bail applications, the Vakalatnamas have been signed by the
16-ba-3029-2025 with connected.doc applicant himself. This factual position is not disputed by either side. What further emerges is that both these bail applications have been filed simultaneously and are pending consideration at the same time at the instance of the same applicant. Such a situation, in the considered view of this Court, renders the applications defective at the threshold. It is a settled principle that multiplicity of bail applications in respect of the same crime and at the instance of the same accused is impermissible, as it creates a possibility of conflicting orders and amounts to abuse of the process of law. The applicant cannot be permitted to maintain parallel proceedings before the Court, particularly when the defect lies at the very foundation of the applications. 2.
In this backdrop, since both bail applications suffer from this fundamental defect, this Court is left with no option but to hold that they are not maintainable. Consequently, the Court is not inclined to examine or enter into the merits of the case at this stage. Once the very maintainability of the applications is in doubt, the merits of the matter cannot be gone into, lest it should result in an incongruous situation.
3.
In view of the above discussion and the disposal of the main bail applications on the ground of non-maintainability, it necessarily follows that the interim applications taken out therein also cannot survive for consideration. Hence, the interim applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)