Munaf Mohammad Sayeed Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jun 2025BA/2927/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused at this stage pending conclusion of trial; Special Judge (MCOCA), Thane report dated 28-07-2025: accused mostly not produced, advocates absent after earlier bail rejection, charge unframed, trial estimated at six months; liberty reserved to file fresh bail application after six months; application permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of as withdrawn; Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., 04-11-2025; API D.H. Jogdand, Kasarvadavli Police Station, present.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the Applicant's counsel to withdraw the bail application, with liberty to file a fresh bail application after six months from the date the order is placed before the Trial Court; bail itself was not granted at this stage. ¶¶18

Munaf Mohammad Sayeed Ansari vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Prasad Rajput (P.A.) 39-BA-2927-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2927 OF 2024

¶4

Munaf Mohammad Sayeed Ansari …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶5

Mr. S.R. Parad a/w Enait Shaikh, for the Applicant. Ms. Megha S. Bajoria , APP for the Respondent - State. API – D.H. Jogdand, Kasarvadavli Police Station, present.

¶6

CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. DATED: 04^TH NOVEMBER 2025

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1. By order dated 9^th June, 2025, this Court called for a report from the learned Special Judge (MCOCA), Thane, seeking details regarding approximate time likely to be required for completion of the entire trial, considering the number of witnesses, nature of evidence, and other relevant factors. Accordingly, report dated 28^th July, 2025, was submitted to this Court. I have gone through the said report. Paragraph No.7 of the said report clearly records that ‘Roznama shows that on most of the dates all accused were

¶9

Page 1 of 3 4^th November 2025

¶10

Prasad Rajput (P.A.) 39-BA-2927-2024.doc

¶11

not produced. The Advocates representing the accused after rejection of the bail application are not attending the Court because of which charge could not be framed.’ The Trial Court has also reported that ‘taking note of all above aspects, six months time would be required for disposal of the case.’

¶12

2. In view of this report and the approximation of the Trial Court that the trial will be concluded within a period of six months, I am not inclined to grant bail to the Applicant at this stage.

¶13

3. Needless to state that the Applicant is at liberty to file a fresh bail application, if so desired, after a period of six months from the date on which this order is placed before Trial Court.

¶14

4. In these circumstances, Mr.Parad, learned counsel for the Applicant, seeks permission to withdraw the present bail application with the aforesaid liberty. Permission is accordingly granted.

¶15

Page 2 of 3 4^th November 2025

¶16

Prasad Rajput

¶17

(P.A.) 39-BA-2927-2024.doc

¶18

5. Bail Application stands disposed of as withdrawn.

¶19

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)

¶20

Page 3 of 3