Dismissed¶20

Suresh Turakhia and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 May 2026ABA/915/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory/pre-arrest bail application dismissed as infructuous because the underlying FIR had been quashed. Keywords: anticipatory bail; pre-arrest bail; infructuous; quashing of FIR; FIR No. 474 of 2025; C.R. No. 474/2025; Malad Police Station, Borivali (West); Criminal Application No. 881 of 2026; Suresh Turakhia; State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court; Ashwin D. Bhobe; order dated 06.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

In view of the quashing of FIR No. 474 of 2025 by this Court's order dated 06.05.2026 in Criminal Application No. 881 of 2026 (a position stated by counsel for the applicants and respondent No. 2 and not contested by the APP for the State), the anticipatory bail application was rendered infructuous and was dismissed as infructuous. ¶20

Suresh Turakhia and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

12-ABA-915-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 915 OF 2026

¶4

Suresh Turakhia And Anr … Applicant Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi a/w Mr. Pankaj Waghela, for the Applicant.

¶6

Adv. Murtaza Najmi a/w Adv. Abhinesh Yadav, Adv. Farida Najmi, Adv. Nancy Kanungo a/w D. K. Shukla, for the Respondent No. 2 Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶7

PSI – R. G. Gujar. Malad Police Station.

¶8

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 6^th MAY, 2026.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi learned Advocate for the

¶11

Applicant and Mr. Murtaza learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶12

By the present Application, the Applicant has sought the

¶13

following substantive relief in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under :-

¶14

“(a) This Hon’ble Court may please to direct the respondent to

¶15

Vivekanand 1

¶16

12-ABA-915-2026.doc

¶17

release the Applicants on bail in the event of their arrest in the C. R. No. 474/2025.”

¶18

Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Murtaza Najmi, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, submit that the FIR bearing No. 474 of 2025 registered with the Malad Police Station, Borivali (West), is the subject matter of Criminal Application No. 881 of 2026. They submit that, by order dated 06.05.2026, this Court has allowed the Criminal Application No. 881 of 2026 and quashed the FIR bearing No. 474 of 2025. They submit that, in view of the quashing of the FIR bearing No. 474 of 2025, this Application for pre-arrest bail is rendered infructuous.

¶19

Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP for the Respondent – State, does not contest the statement made by Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Murtaza Najmi, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

¶20

In view of the above, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 915 of 2026 is dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶22

Vivekanand

¶23

Suresh Turakhia and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Turakhia and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anton Nazarov Thr His Natural Guardian and Next Friend Petitioner NO.2 and 2 Ors. vs the Union of India Thr the Secretary and 7 Ors.

Anil Ananda Mulik vs the State of Maharashtra

Kapil Arvind Pathak vs State of Maharashtra

Lakhan Mohan Waswani @ Patil vs the State of Maharashtra

Shweta Rupesh Salvi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kapil Arvind Pathak vs State of Maharashtra