Vikram @ Bala Shahaji Sonavane …Petitioner. versus Commissioner of Police and Ors. …. Respondents.
Jayshree Tripathi a/w. Anjali Raut for the Petitioner. Smt. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State/Respondent. Mr. S. S. Patil, PSI Vartaknagar.CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & S. M. MODAK, JJ.DATE : 7th FEBRUARY, 2025
9. We have considered the submissions. The main questionwould be whether it was necessary to place the reasoned bailorder before the detaining Authority to enable him to reach hissubjective satisfaction.
12. The legal position on this issue is quite clear which isreproduced by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of AnilMohite. There is hardly any dispute regarding this settled legalposition.13. In the present case, therefore, we will have to see the bailorder passed by the Competent Court granting bail to thePetitioner. A copy of the entire bail was produced before us for ourperusal. It is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.The said order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Thane on12/6/2024. Till paragraph 3 the prosecution story was mentionedand in paragraphs 7 and 8 submissions of the rival counsel werereproduced. The reasoning part is only in paragraph 9 which reads thus
“9] From perusal of record, it reveals that applicant isbehind the bars since 21.5.2024. Prima facie, theinvestigation as regards applicant seems to be completed.Nothing is remained to be recovered or discovered at theinstance of applicant. No purpose will be served bykeeping the applicant behind the bars. It is settled law thatmerely multiple offences are registered, is not a ground toreject the bail. The offences are not punishable with deathsentence or life imprisonment. Considering the abovediscussion, applicant is entitled for release on bail. Hence,the following order:ORDER1] Bail Application No.953/2024 is allowed.
Views: 6
Leave a Reply