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
Filing Number
APPP/5437/2026
Filing Date
27-May-2026
Registration No
APPP/1738/2026
Registration Date
27-May-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
08-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Last updated 09-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.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
-
2.PRASHANT S/O AMBADAS GOHAD
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., BANODA, DIST. AMRAVATI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajnish R. VyasView PDF
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.
-
08-Jun-2026
—
-
27-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Raj D. WakodeView PDF
-
27-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. APPP/1738/2026
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.
Explore other courts