Prathmesh @ Guddaya Anirudh Patil v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2025 Prathmesh @ Guddya Anirudh Patil ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

***  Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi i/b Ms. Kavita Gandhi, for Applicant.  Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for Respondent.

 Mr. M.N. ambaji, PSI, Wada Police Station.

*** CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date:

2025.02.04 10:16:29 +0530 SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI DATE : 03rd FEBRUARY, 2025 P. C. :

1.

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

2.

This is the third anticipatory bail application filed by the present applicant. The first Anticipatory Bail Application bearing No.2782 of 2024, was dismissed as withdrawn on 15th October, 2024. This Court specifically recorded that after having argued some time and when this Court was inclined to dismiss the application, permission was sought to withdraw the application. 3.

Thereafter, the applicant filed Anticipatory Bail Application No.3079 of 2024, and the said application was also withdrawn on 21st November, 2024.

4.

The instant application is the third such application filed by the

applicant. If the applicant was interested in a detailed reasoned order being passed by this Court, he should have suffered such an order on 15th October, 2024, itself when the first anticipatory bail application was argued. Instead, when the Court showed its disinclination to grant any relief, the application was withdrawn. The subsequent application was also withdrawn. In such circumstances, by repeatedly approaching this Court the applicant is abusing the process of law. It cannot lie in his mouth that since a reasoned order is not passed by this Court, he would be entitled to approach this Court again and again. There is absolutely no change in circumstance and in any case, even the specious reason of change in circumstance cannot be invoked for filing successive anticipatory bail applications, in such manner. 5.

The Supreme Court in the case of G.R. Ananda Babu Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (order dated 28th January, 2021, passed in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.213 of 2021), has held that successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained, more so when the applicant - accused remains absconding and he has not cooperated with the investigation.

6.

The FIR in the present case was registered as far back as on 27th June, 2024 and the applicant has remained absconding. In the meanwhile, he has been filing such successive anticipatory bail applications one after the

other, thereby abusing the process of Court.

7.

This cannot be tolerated and hence, the application is dismissed. (MANISH PITALE, J.)