Allowed¶16

Digambar S/O Anandrao Pingle v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2025BA/619/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Bail Application No. 619 of 2025, decided 10.02.2025 by N. R. Borkar, J. Digambar A. Pingle v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Regular bail under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act case (SCC No.10419 of 2007); non-bailable warrant cancellation refused by trial Court on 03.02.2025; applicant taken in custody for non-appearance on many dates; bail allowed on cash bail of Rs.20,000/- with condition to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- before trial Court; release warrant only after deposit; regular attendance required.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on cash bail of Rs.20,000/-, subject to deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- before the trial Court; release warrant to issue only after such deposit; applicant to regularly attend the dates before the trial Court. ¶16

Digambar S/O Anandrao Pingle vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

35-BA-619-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 619 OF 2025

¶3

Digambar A. Pingle ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶4

Mr. Ashok S. a/w Mr. Prajot H. Jaggi, Adv. Daksha P. Adv. Pallavi Kulkarni Adv. Poonam R., Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State. Mr. Prasad K. for Respondent No. 2.

¶5

CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 10.02.2025.

¶6

P.C.:

¶7

This is an application for regular bail.

¶8

The applicant is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in SCC. No.10419 of 2007 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6 at Pune.

¶9

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶10

By order dated 03.02.2025, the trial Court has refused to cancel the Non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant and has taken him in custody and since then he is in jail. The reason for taking the applicant in custody

1 of 2

Pramod S.Lakare

35-BA-619-2025.doc

appears to be non-appearance of the applicant before the trial Court on many dates and as the matter is of the year 2007. Be that as it may, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail, subject to certain conditions. In the result, the following order is passed.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16