Sonu Ram Mahesh Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2026WP/897/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition seeking quashing of FIR; inherent power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; FIR No. 533 of 2025, Bhandup Police Station; Sections 108, 352, 352(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; liberty to file discharge application before Trial Court; charge-sheet expected within four weeks; charge-sheet not yet filed; Sonu Ram Mahesh Yadav v. State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court; Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.; disposed of as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file an Application seeking discharge before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage; Criminal Writ Petition No. 897 of 2026 disposed of as withdrawn. ¶¶21

Sonu Ram Mahesh Yadav vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

12-WP-897-2026.doc

¶2

Digitally signed GAYATRI by GAYATRI RAJENDRA RAJENDRA SHIMPI SHIMPI Date: 2026.03.09 11:20:25 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 897 OF 2026

¶5

Sonu Ram Mahesh Yadav … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Devendra Patil, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State. Mr. Vikas Jadhav – PSI, Bhandup Police Station.

¶7

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 4^th MARCH, 2026

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

By the present Petition, the Petitioner has sought for

¶10

the following substantive relief in prayer clause (a):-

¶11

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue order or direction under the inherent power under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be pleased to Quash and set aside the First Information Report being FIR No. 533 of 2025, under Sections 108, 352, 352(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered by the Bhandup Police Station. And/or to pass such other and further Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice:”

¶12

After having heard the matter for some time, Mr.

¶13

Devendra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on instructions

¶14

from the Petitioner, craves leave to withdraw the present Petition

Gayatri shimpi

12-WP-897-2026.doc

with liberty to file an Application seeking discharge before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. He however submits that Respondent No. 1 has till date not filed the charge-sheet.

¶19

Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the State, does not object to the request made by Mr. Devendra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner. He on instructions from the Investigation Officer submits that the investigation is nearing completion and the charge-sheet would be filed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶20

In view of the request made by Mr. Devendra Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, leave granted to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to file an Application seeking discharge at the appropriate stage before the Trial Court. If such Application is filed, the same be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶21

Criminal Writ Petition No. 897 of 2026 is disposed of

¶22

as withdrawn.

¶23

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶24

¶25

Gayatri shimpi

Sonu Ram Mahesh Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Ram Mahesh Yadav v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajanikant Surajrambachkaniwala and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sumesh Gupta vs S.H.A.M.K. Mercantile Private Limited

Yasmin Baksish Qureshi and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rakesh Shubhanand Jha vs State of Maharashtra

Siraj Salim Sayyed and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravin Baburao Patil vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.