Disposed¶17

Manish Raosaheb Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Oct 2025ABA/1449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application; applicant absent on two call-outs; adjournment to 13 October 2025 as last opportunity; warning of orders in absence; APP submission of absconding/non-cooperation; no interim order; Bombay High Court; Advait M. Sethna; ABA No. 1449 of 2024; Manish Raosaheb Shinde v. State of Maharashtra; dated 6 October 2025.

What did the court decide?

Proceeding adjourned to 13 October 2025 as one last opportunity to the unrepresented applicant; if the applicant is absent in person or through counsel on the adjourned date, the Court shall pass appropriate orders in his absence. ¶17

Manish Raosaheb Shinde vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant Manish Raosaheb Shinde in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1449 of 2024 (issue acknowledged as warranting hearing but left undecided on this date). +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Since the applicant was not represented, the Court granted him one last opportunity by adjourning the proceeding to 13 October 2025, considering such deferral to be in the interest of justice.

¶17

Key takeaways

The Court made clear that if the applicant is not present in person or through his Advocate on the adjourned date of hearing, it shall proceed to pass appropriate orders in his absence.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Advait M. Sethna, J.), order dated 6 October 2025 in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1449 of 2024, Manish Raosaheb Shinde v. State of Maharashtra. The bench, constituted only for the day, found that nobody appeared for the applicant when the matter was called out in the morning session or again after the post-lunch session, and the added respondent/intervenor was likewise unrepresented. The learned APP, on instructions, submitted that the applicant appears to be absconding and fleeing from justice, had shown no cooperation whatsoever in the investigation, and that no interim order operated in his favour. Holding that passing orders in the applicant's absence might not be just and fair and that deferral had become inevitable, the Court adjourned the proceeding to 13 October 2025 as one last opportunity, and directed that if the applicant is not present in person or through his Advocate on the adjourned date, the Court shall pass appropriate orders in his absence. No decision was rendered on the merits of the anticipatory bail application; no statute or precedent was cited.

Manish Raosaheb Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Raosaheb Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Edwin Anlsemose Theodore vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Durgaprasad Picchiya Rao vs State of Maharashtra

Zahira Hasmat Miyan vs State of Maharashtra

Akash Prakash Gahukamble and Ors. vs Sayali Akash Gahukamble

Firoz Alif Khan @ Disha vs the State of Maharashtra

Renu Ganesh Mishra vs State of Maharashtra