Allowed

Kunal Ganesh Padmakar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2016APL/2/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application where the High Court held that the Sessions Judge's order cancelling bail was illegal due to absence of findings on breach of conditions. The Court quashed the impugned order and allowed filing a fresh application on alternative grounds without adjudicating available grounds for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling bail dated 17th December 2014 is quashed and set aside with a direction to file a fresh application on alternative grounds if applicable.

Kunal Ganesh Padmakar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

apl-2.15.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2015

¶5

Kunal Ganesh Padmakar … Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. S.K. Halwasia i/by M/s. Halwasia & Co. for the Applicant. Mrs.M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh Khobragade a/w Ms. Sapna Khobragade, Mr. Pushkar Verma and Ms. Gayatri Nayak i/by Mr. Sandeep D. Sherkhane for the Respondent 2.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent and the learned APP for the first Respondent. Prima facie, it appears to us that the impugned order dated 17^th December, 2014 by which bail granted to the Applicant is cancelled is completely illegal. There is no finding recorded by the Sessions Judge that the Applicant committed any breach of condition of bail or that he has misused the liberty granted under the order of bail.

¶12

2 Hence, we issue Rule. The Respondents waives service. Ad-

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

apl-2.15.odt

¶15

interim relief granted on 2^nd January, 2015 will continue to operate as interim relief.

¶16

3 After this order was passed, the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent states on instructions that the impugned order may be set aside. However, it may be clarified that this order will not come in the way of filing a fresh application for cancellation of bail on the grounds other than the grounds which were urged while passing the impugned order. The said request is reasonable. Accordingly, we pass the following order :-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(i) The impugned order dated 17^th December, 2014 is quashed and set aside and the application being Miscellaneous Application Exhibit-5 in Sessions Case No.744 of 2014 stands rejected;

¶19

(ii) This order will not preclude filing of a fresh application for cancellation of bail granted to the Applicant. We however, make it clear that such application cannot be filed on the grounds which were taken in application at Exhibit 5. We also make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question whether any ground is

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

apl-2.15.odt

¶22

available for cancellation of bail. All contentions in that

¶23

behalf are kept open;

¶24

(iii) Rule is made partly absolute on above terms.

¶25

(A.A. SAYED, J )

¶26

(A.S. OKA, J )

¶27

3 of 3

Kunal Ganesh Padmakar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Ganesh Padmakar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hiral Jayanti Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hemraj Gangasai Bhakiya Vs Bindia Kripalani and Anr.

The Registrar General, High Court Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Noor Mohammed Suvarnadurgkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Abdul Latif Ibrahim Mahaldar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Noor Mohammed Suvarnadurgkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.