Amit Arun Patil v. The State Of Maharashtra And ANR.

39 Cri-InterimAppln No.143.2026 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI-INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2026 IN CR. APPEAL NO. 848 OF 2021 AMIT ARUN PATIL

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Tejas Hilage APP for Respondent-State : Dr. Ashvini A. Takalkar ...

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

Date : 15th April, 2026 ORDER :- 1.

The applicant has presented this application seeking to extend the time to file an application for regular bail to the application for a period of 3 weeks as appearing in Clause 6 of the order dated 19.09.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2021. 2.

This Court passed an order dated 19.09.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2021, more particularly, Clauses No. 6 and 7 of the order are as follows :

"6. The Appellant is directed to file an Application for Regular Bail within a period of three weeks from today. If such Bail Application is fled, the concerned Court shall decide it on its own merits without being infuenced by the order passed by this Court dated 12.10.2021.

39 Cri-InterimAppln No.143.2026 -27. The interim Anticipatory Bail granted to the Appellant by order dated 12.10.2021 shall continue to operate till the decision of the competent Court in the Application for Regular Bail."

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was prevented from taking the legal recourse as directed by this Court on 19.09.2022. It is further submitted that the applicant has approached this Court on 21.02.2026 only upon receipt of a summons.

4.

The learned APP opposed the application submitting that the applicant has intentionally not complied the order of this Court and hence, prayed to reject the application. 5.

Upon considering the submission of the both the sides and upon perusal of the record, I find that the applicant has failed to disclose any plausible or sufficient reasons explaining as to why he was prevented from complying with the directions issued over three years ago. There is a marked absence of justification for the delay in filing the requisite application for regular bail. As such, no case is made out warranting consideration of the application. 6.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Omkar Joshi