Dismissed¶¶29

Gopal Chinnaya Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Apr 2025APL/421/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of criminal applications; charge sheet for violation of prohibitory orders during Corona (COVID-19) period; Government Resolution dated 20th September 2022, clause III; Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 599; sitting and former MP/MLA prosecutions cannot be withdrawn without consent/leave of High Court; liberty to approach appropriate Committee; Bombay High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; applications dismissed as withdrawn (9 October 2025).

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the applications effectively granted; all eight criminal applications dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicants to approach the appropriate Committee. ¶¶29

Gopal Chinnaya Shetty vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

PDP

¶2

913 & 914-Cri.APL-323-2025 +.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 323 OF 2025

¶5

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2025 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2025 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.272 OF 2025 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 276 OF 2025

¶6

Sunil Rane .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶7

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 421 OF 2025 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 422 OF 2025

¶8

Gopal Chinnaya Shetty .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶9

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 424 OF 2025

¶10

Manisha Chaudhary .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶11

...

¶12

Mr. Rahul Tiwari, Advocate for the Applicants in all the matters. Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, I/c Public Prosecutor a/w Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.1-State in all the matters.

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶15

DATE : 9^th OCTOBER 2025.

¶16

¶17

PDP

¶18

913 & 914-Cri.APL-323-2025 +.doc

¶19

P.C. :

¶20

The scheme under the Government Resolution dated 20^th September 2022 reads as under :-

¶21

“6. The following procedure should be followed for cases in which a charge sheet has been filed for violation of prohibitory orders during the Corona period:-

¶22

I. ….. II. …..

¶23

III. As per the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699/2016 (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Ors.), cases in which sitting and former Members of Parliament (Mps) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are involved, cannot be withdrawn without the consent of the Hon’ble High Court.”

¶24

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. ” (2021) 20 SCC 599 observed as under: -

¶25

“8. In view of the law laid down by this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that no prosecution against a sitting or former MP/MLA shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court in the respective suo motu writ petitions registered in pursuance of our order dated 16-9-2020. The High Courts are requested to examine the withdrawals, whether pending or disposed of since 16-9-2020, in light of guidelines laid down by this Court.

¶26

Mr. Rahul Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw these applications with liberty to approach the appropriate Committee.

¶27

JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE

¶28

Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATHSALUNKE Date: 2025.11.03 11:42:48 +0530

¶29

Criminal Application Nos.323 of 2025, 274 of 2025, 273 of 2025, 272 of 2025, 276 of 2025, 421 of 2025, 422 of 2025 and 424 of 2025 are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate Committee.

¶30

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶31

Gopal Chinnaya Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Chinnaya Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Swapnil Chandrakant Gandhi Proprietor of M/S Konstuct Engineering vs Dr Ashvin N Vakil

Rafik Salehmohammad Jafrani vs State of Maharashtra

Gandhar Sanjay Ratnaparkhi vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Rane vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manisha Chaudhary, Member of Legislative Assembly of Dahisar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arun Ramlal Yadav and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.