Disposed¶21

Hanumantrao Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Apr 2026APL/468/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proclamation against absconding/abroad accused stayed; applicant employed in United Kingdom; offences under Sections 498A, 377, 312, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code; non-bailable warrant dated 13 November 2025 against A4; application for recall of NBW pending undecided; no execution report of NBW received; Magistrate to decide recall application first; interim stay on proclamation order (13 March 2026 per para 4 / 31 March 2026 per operative para 8); RCC No. 867 of 2024; Bombay High Court, Jamadar J., order dated 16 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Execution and operation of the proclamation order against the Applicant stayed in the meanwhile; learned Magistrate requested to hear and decide the pending recall application of the non-bailable warrant on the next scheduled date; application disposed. ¶21

Hanumantrao Apparao Patil vs State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of issue of proclamation passed by the learned Magistrate against the Applicant should be interfered with/stayed, given that the Applicant's application for recall of the earlier non-bailable warrant remains undecided and no execution report of that warrant had been received.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Since the application for recall of the non-bailable warrant dated 13 November 2025 remained undecided (asserting the applicant is in the UK for employment) and no execution report of the warrant had been received, the learned Magistrate ought first to have decided the recall application.

¶17

Key takeaways

The learned Magistrate is requested to hear and decide the application for recall of the non-bailable warrant on the next scheduled date.ratio¶19
In the meanwhile, execution and operation of the order of issue of proclamation against the Applicant (A4) stands stayed.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (N.J. Jamadar, J.), 16 April 2026 — Criminal Application No. 468 of 2026, Hanumantrao Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra. The applicant, prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 377, 312, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and presently working in the United Kingdom, challenged a Magisterial order of issue of proclamation. Noting that his application for recall of the non-bailable warrant dated 13 November 2025 was still undecided and that no report of execution of the warrant had been received, the Court held the Magistrate ought first to decide the recall application; stayed, in the meanwhile, execution and operation of the proclamation order (recorded as issued on 13 March 2026 in the narrative, referred to as dated 31 March 2026 in the operative stay); requested the Magistrate to hear and decide the recall application on the next scheduled date; and disposed of the application. Criminal Case RCC No. 867 of 2024 pending before the Magistrate.

¶1

15 apl 468 of 2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.468 OF 2026

¶3

Hanumantrao Apparao Patil ... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶4

Mr. Premkumar R. Pandey with Mr. Devendra Agrawal, for Applicant. Mrs. R.S.Tendulkar, APP for State.

¶5

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶6

DATE : 16 APRIL 2026

¶7

P.C.

¶8

Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant.

¶9

The Applicant is aggrieved by an order of issue of proclamation passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶10

The applicant is facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 377, 312, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant is presently working in United Kingdom.

¶11

SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE

¶12

Digitally signed by SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE Date: 2026.04.18 11:59:38 +0530

¶13

On 13 November 2025, the learned Magistrate issued a non-bailable warrant against the Applicant (A4). The Applicant filed an application seeking recall of the said order of issue of non-bailable warrant against the applicant. It is submitted that the said application has yet not been decided. In the meanwhile, on 13 March 2026, the learned Magistrate has ordered issue of proclamation against the Applicant.

¶14

SSP 1/2

¶15

15 apl 468 of 2026.doc

¶16

It does not appear that the report of the execution or otherwise of the

¶17

non-bailable warrant was received by the learned Magistrate. Evidently, the application for recall of the said order, asserting that the applicant is staying at UK in connection with his employment, has not been decided. In these circumstances, it would have been in the fitness of things to first decide the application to recall the order dated 13 November 2025 of issue of nonbailable warrant.

¶18

The Court is informed that Criminal Case i.e. RCC No.867 of 2024 is posted before the learned Magistrate today.

¶19

Learned Magistrate is requested to hear and decide the said application for recall of the non-bailable warrant on the next scheduled date.

¶20

In the meanwhile, the execution and operation of the order dated 31 March 2026 of issue of proclamation against the Applicant (A4) stands stayed.

¶21

The Application stands disposed.

¶22

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶23

SSP 2/2

Hanumantrao Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumantrao Apparao Patil 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kusum Chandrakant Khaire vs Sonali Shekhar Badadhe

Smt. Nayananben Bhogilal Doshi Since Deceased through Legal Heirs and Ors. vs Tejashri Jayntilal Doshi Deceased

Nahid Shafique Qureshi and Anr. vs Nadeem Siddique Allana

Mrs Sheela Mohan Mathrani Since Deceased through Legal Representatives vs Chandan Mohan Mathrani

Tukaram Barku Tambade and Anr. vs the Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Sumeet Lalitkumar Bhatia vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.