Abhishek Kumar Acchutanand Mishra vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Abhishek Kumar Acchutanand Mishra vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 2148 of 2026 permitted, with liberty to raise the additional ground (purported service of the grounds of arrest on prosecution witness Mr. Praful Bhosle) in the pending Bail Application before the Sessions Court, Mumbai.

Issue for consideration

Whether the grounds of arrest were lawfully furnished to the Petitioner, the main ground raised being that the grounds of arrest were supplied to one Mr. Praful Bhosle, a person with no connection to the Petitioner who was subsequently learnt to be a prosecution witness.

Ratio / Principle

Permission granted to the Petitioner to withdraw Writ Petition No. 2148 of 2026 with liberty to pursue the pending Bail Application before the Sessions Court, Mumbai and to add the submission that the grounds of arrest were purportedly served on Mr. Praful Bhosle, a prosecution witness unconnected with the Petitioner; the Bench expressly made no observation on the merits of the matter.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 2148 of 2026 — Abhishek Kumar Acchutanand Mishra v. State of Maharashtra, decided 24 April 2026 by Sarang V. Kotwal and Sandesh D. Patil, JJ. The Petitioner's principal grievance was that the grounds of arrest were supplied to one Mr. Praful Bhosle, a person unconnected with the Petitioner who was subsequently learnt to be a prosecution witness. Counsel disclosed that a Bail Application was already pending before the Sessions Court, Mumbai taking the ground that grounds of arrest were not supplied in accordance with law, though without the specific submission regarding service on Mr. Praful Bhosle. The Bench permitted withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to pursue that Bail Application with the additional submission, and expressly recorded that no observation was made on the merits. No statute or precedent was cited or considered; the judgment contains no adjudicated holding on the grounds-of-arrest issue and is citable, if at all, only for its procedural disposal.

902-WP-2148-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2148 OF 2026

Abhishek Kumar Acchutanand Mishra … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents

Mr. Amit Prasad a/w Mr. Anuj Tiwary a/w Mr. Prakhau Tandon, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Amandeep Singh Sra i/b Mr. Advait U. Shukla, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Supriya Kak, A.P.P, for the Respondent-State.

-------------------CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 24^th APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

Learned A.P.P. to file affidavit-in-reply.

Advocate Mr. Amit Prasad appears for the Petitioner and states

that the main ground raised in this Petition is that the grounds of arrest

were supplied to one Mr. Praful Bhosle. The Petitioner has no concern

with that person. Subsequently they came to know that said person

1/3

Manisha

902-WP-2148-2026.doc

Mr. Praful Bhosle is a prosecution witness.

Learned Counsel fairly submits that before filing this Petition, the Petitioner has already filed a Bail Application before the Session Court, Mumbai in the present subject matter. In that Bail Application, a specific ground is taken that grounds of arrest was not supplied in accordance with law. However, the specific submission was not raised that it was allegedly served on Mr. Praful Bhosle who was a prosecution witness. Learned Counsel seeks permission to pursue the said bail application with the additional submission that the grounds of arrest are purportedly served on Mr. Praful Bhosle who is a prosecution witness and has no connection with the Petitioner. Since the earlier Bail Application is already pending before a competent Court, learned Counsel seeks permission to withdraw this Petition with liberty to raise this particular grounds in that bail application. Permission is granted. The Writ Petition No.2148 of 2026 is allowed to be withdrawn with such liberty.

2/3

Manisha

902-WP-2148-2026.doc

It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the

merits of this matter.

Accordingly, Writ Petition No.2148 of 2026 is disposed of

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

3/3

Manisha