Bombay High Court
BA/1578/2026 of MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM QUADRI ABDUL SATTAR Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 921 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1578 OF 2026 Mohammad Ibrahim Quadri Abdul Sattar VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another ….. Mr. Shaikh Md Aamir Abdul Qadir, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for Respondent No.1 -
921.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
921 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1578 OF 2026
Mohammad Ibrahim Quadri Abdul Sattar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
…..
Mr. Shaikh Md Aamir Abdul Qadir, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for Respondent No.1 - State
…..
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATE
: 13.10.2026
PER COURT :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The learned APP informs that during the pendency of the present Application, the charge-sheet has been filed, as the investigation against the present Applicant is completed.
2. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that, initially, the Applicant had approached this Court by way of Anticipatory Bail Application No.168/2025. This Court [Coram: R. M. Joshi, J.] by order dated 19.08.2026, allowed the said Application and granted anticipatory bail to the present Applicant. However, the learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that, prior to the said application being decided by this Court, the Applicant was already arrested on 27.06.2026. Inadvertently, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when the Application was finally argued and decided. Though this Court has passed an order granting anticipatory bail to the present Applicant, the said order is of no assistance to the Applicant, as he was already in custody when the order granting anticipatory bail
2026:BHC-AUG:49225
921. odt was passed. It was the duty of the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant, as well as the Applicant himself, to bring this material fact to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail application. The suppression of the fact of the Applicant's arrest has resulted in the passing of the order dated 19.08.2026.
3. Be that as it may, the position as on today is that the Applicant is in custody, the investigation is complete, and charge- sheet against the present Applicant is filed by the Prosecution during the pendency of the present Application.
4. The learned Advocate for the Applicant, upon instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the present Application, with liberty to approach the learned Trial Court afresh by filing an appropriate application along with a copy of the charge-sheet.
5. Liberty, as prayed for, is granted. Application is disposed of as withdrawn.
6. In case, the Applicant prefers a fresh bail Application, along with a copy of charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court to decide the same on its own merits. [HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.] Sameer/Oct-2026