Disposed¶19

Mohd. Subrati Mohd. Yusuf Ansari v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2025IA/2976/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application disposed as withdrawn; Bombay High Court; Dr. Neela Gokhale; 15 July 2025; Shahrukh Shahid Khan v. State of Maharashtra; Bail Application No. 1253 of 2024; liberty to file fresh bail application after six months if trial not concluded; court not inclined to allow bail; Interim Application No. 2976 of 2024 disposed; Mohd. Subrati Mohd. Yusuf Ansari; co-accused Nisar Mirza Accused No.1; expeditious hearing of trial directed; three witnesses examined out of twentytwo; witnesses may be dropped; Shivaji Nagar Police Station; counsel Ms. Shifa Khan; APP B.B.Kulkarni.

What did the court decide?

Bail Application disposed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh Bail Application after six months in case the trial is not concluded; the connected Interim Application No. 2976 of 2024 is also disposed of. ¶19

Mohd. Subrati Mohd. Yusuf Ansari vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court was inclined to allow the Bail Application of the Applicant (Original Accused No.2) and grant bail. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

The Bail Application is disposed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Permission sought by the learned counsel for the Applicant to withdraw the Bail Application, with liberty to file a fresh Bail Application after six months in case the trial is not concluded, is granted.

¶18

Key takeaways

In view of the disposal of the Bail Application, nothing survives in the Interim Application therein, and the Interim Application is also disposed of.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., 15 July 2025 — Bail Application No. 1253 of 2024 (Shahrukh Shahid Khan v. State of Maharashtra). After hearing the application for some time, the Court was not inclined to allow the bail application of the Applicant/Original Accused No.2; his counsel, Ms. Shifa Khan, therefore sought permission to withdraw it with liberty to file a fresh bail application after six months in case the trial is not concluded. The learned APP (Mr. B.B.Kulkarni) submitted that three of the twentytwo listed witnesses had already been examined and that some witnesses may be dropped, and that in the bail application of co-accused Nisar Mirza (Accused No.1) the Court had already directed expeditious hearing of the trial. The Court granted the withdrawal permission with liberty as prayed and disposed of the bail application as withdrawn; consequently, nothing survived in Interim Application No. 2976 of 2024 filed by Mohd. Subrati Mohd. Yusuf Ansari, which was also disposed of. Investigating officer: PSI Mahesh Anjanwad, Shivaji Nagar Police Station.

¶1

3-BA-1253-2024.DOC

¶2

Shivgan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1253 OF 2024

¶5

Shahrukh Shahid Khan …Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra …Respondent WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2976 OF 2024 Mohd. Subrati Mohd. Yusuf Ansari …Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

¶7

Ms. Shifa Khan , with Adv. Avesh Qureshi, i/b Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, for the Applicants. Mr. B.B.Kulkarni, APP, for the Respondent-State. Ms. Pratiksha C. Keni, for the Intervenor in IA/2976/2024. PSI Mr. Mahesh Anjanwad, attached to Shivaji Nagar Police Station present.

¶8

CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. DATED: 15^th July 2025

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1 After hearing the Application for sometime, when

¶11

this Court was not inclined to allow the Bail Application, Ms.

¶12

Shifa Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant/Original Accused No.2, sought permission to withdraw the said Bail Application with liberty to file fresh

Page 1 of 2

15th July 2025

3-BA-1253-2024.DOC

Bail Application after a period of six months, in case, the trial is not concluded.

¶17

Mr. Kulkarni, the learned APP, submits that three witnesses have already been examined. He further states that the number of witnesses from the list of witnesses are twentytwo. But it is likely that some of the witnesses may be dropped. He further states that in the Bail Application of the co-accused, namely, Nisar Mirza, Accused No.1, this Court has already directed expeditious hearing of the trial.

¶18