Amitkumar Suresh Chugh v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1897 OF 2026 Amitkumar Suresh Chugh ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

... Respondent -------------------- Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Supriya Kak, A.P.P., for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Nikhil Mendge (Through V.C.), a/w Mr. Niket Dalal i/b Mr. Himanshu Vidhani, for the Respondent No.2.

Mr. Aabasaheb Patil, Senior Police Inspector, Turbhe Police Station. Mr. Wasim Shaikh, Assistant Police Inspector .

Ms. Jyoti Deshmukh, Police Inspector, EOW-Navi Mumbai. -------------------- CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 24th APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit-in-reply. Same is taken on record. Copy of affidavit-in-reply is already served on the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

1/3

2.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State and learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 jointly inform the Court that before filing of this Petition, the Petitioner has already filed a Bail Application before a Single Judge Bench of this Court bearing Bail Application No. 4637 of 2025 which was filed first in point of time and the present Petition is filed subsequently. The only ground raised in this Petition is that the Petitioner was arrested on 28/02/2025 and was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours. The same contention was raised in the Bail Application before the Magistrate and the Bail Application before the Sessions Court. All these contentions were specifically considered and rejected. After that, the Petitioner has filed a Bail Application before this Court which is pending. During pendency of the Bail Application, this Petition on that very ground is filed. The same ground however, is not taken in the Bail Application. 3.

We find that, two proceedings for the same relief on different 2/3

grounds need not be entertained before different Benches of this Court. Since the Bail Application is filed first in point of time it needs to be pursued otherwise it would amount to forum shopping. When we expressed our opinion, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Petition with liberty to raise this ground in the Bail Application as well. Permission is granted. The Petition is allowed to be withdrawn. The Petitioner is at liberty to raise the ground mentioned hereinabove in the pending Bail Application. 4.

With these observations and the liberty so granted, Writ Petition No.1897 of 2026 is disposed of. It is made clear that, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this matter. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 3/3