Bombay High Court
BA/3191/2026 of PRATHAMESH GORAKH JADHAV Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR on 14 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3191 OF 2026 Prathamesh Gorakh Jadhav … Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and another … Respondents ****** Mr. Aniket Vagal, for Applicant. Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP (through VC), for
1-BA-3191-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3191 OF 2026
Prathamesh Gorakh Jadhav
… Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another
… Respondents
******
Mr. Aniket Vagal, for Applicant.
Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP (through VC), for Respondent-State.
Ms. Dnyaneshwari Hadawale, for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Vijay Suresh Mahadik, Kondhawa Yevalewadi Police Station, Pune, Present.
******
CORAM
:
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.
DATE
:
14th OCTOBER 2026.
PC:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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. Earlier, upon hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, when this Court was not inclined to consider the application for grant bail to the applicant, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant had sought time to take instructions whether the bail application could be withdrawn.
2. On the last date of hearing, this Court had asked the learned APP to confirm as to whether the charge has been framed or not in this case, as on the earlier occasion a statement was made that the charge has been framed. Today, the learned APP has clarified on instructions that the charge was supposed to be framed on 7th October 2026, however, due to the pendency of Bhalerao
1-BA-3191-2026.docx the other matters, the charge could not be framed. She has further submitted that now the case has been adjourned to 21st October 2026, on which date the charge is likely to be framed. The learned APP also submitted that there are only six witnesses that the prosecution proposes to examine and therefore, if an outer limit of six months is given, probably by that time the trial would be concluded.
3. Today the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is 20 years of age and considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Applicant be permitted to withdraw the bail application, with a liberty to renew the prayer for bail after three months, if the trial does not make a substantial progress.
4. Taking into consideration the overall conspectus of the matter, the bail application is permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh application for bail before this court, if there is no substantial progress in the trial after three months. The prosecution is expected to ensure that the prompt steps are taken for expeditious disposal of the case.
5. The bail application is disposed of as withdrawn. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) Bhalerao