PRAFULL S/O AMBADAS GOHAD AND ANR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., BANODA, DIST. AMRAVATI — APPP/1738/2026

Case under Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc). Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 08th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM040171002026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

11th June 2026

Filing Number

APPP/5437/2026

Filing Date

27-05-2026

Registration No

APPP/1738/2026

Registration Date

27-05-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJNISH R. VYAS

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJNISH R. VYAS

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL ( 9 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

08th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Acts & Sections

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc)

Petitioner(s)

PRAFULL S/O AMBADAS GOHAD AND ANR

Adv. O.K. MASURKE,ADV. FOR APPLICANTS,ADV. FOR APPLICANTS, ,RAJAT ARUN BIRANWARE,RAJESH A. BAGDE,N. M. NANDANE,ADV. FOR APPLICANTS

PRASHANT S/O AMBADAS GOHAD

Respondent(s)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., BANODA, DIST. AMRAVATI

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJNISH R. VYAS

08-06-2026

Orders

27-05-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ D. WAKODE
08-06-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJNISH R. VYAS

Case Summary: APPP/1738/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dismissed the petition by Praful s/o Ambadas Gohad seeking to set aside the Court's withdrawal order dated 27.4.2026 of his Anticipatory Bail Application. The Court found that while the applicant claimed his previous counsel withdrew the application without authorization, no evidence of action against the lawyer was produced, and no legal provision existed for recalling the withdrawal order. The Court held the petition constituted an abuse of process and dismissed it with costs of Rs. 1,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: APPP/1738/2026 The High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dismissed the petition by Praful s/o Ambadas Gohad seeking to set aside the Court's withdrawal order dated 27.4.2026 of his Anticipatory Bail Application. The Court found that while the applicant claimed his previous counsel withdrew the application without authorization, no evidence of action against the lawyer was produced, and no legal provision existed for recalling the withdrawal order. The Court held the petition constituted an abuse of process and dismissed it with costs of Rs. 1,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.pc) All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case