Allowed¶22

Naresh Tikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra Eow

Bombay HC25 Apr 2025IA/1444/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of 8 weeks to furnish sureties granted; Applicant already enlarged on bail by reasoned common order dated 25.02.2025; inability to find sureties causing delay beyond surety deadline; interim application allowed in terms of prayer clause 7(i) and disposed; identical relief earlier granted to co-accused Anil O. Khandelwal in IA No. 1418 of 2025; Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Naresh Tikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra; Justice Milind N. Jadhav; Criminal Bail Application No. 5152 of 2024; IA (ST) No. 7964 of 2025; decided April 09, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Extension of 8 weeks granted to the Applicant to furnish the sureties as directed in the earlier bail order (prayer clause 7(i)); Interim Application allowed and disposed of accordingly. ¶22

Naresh Tikamchand Jain vs State of Maharashtra Eow — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Extension of 8 weeks granted to the Applicant to furnish the sureties as directed in the earlier bail order (prayer clause 7(i)); Interim Application allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, enlarged on bail by order dated 25.02.2025 but unable to find the requisite sureties before expiry of the time granted, should be granted an extension of 8 weeks to furnish sureties as directed.

¶19

Court's answer

Considering the Applicant's case (already on bail in a similar case), the delay caused by his inability to find the requisite sureties despite release, and that he had been enlarged on bail on 25.02.2025 by a reasoned order, the Application deserved to be and was allowed.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Interim Application was allowed in terms of prayer clause 7(i), i.e., the Applicant was granted an extension of 8 weeks to furnish sureties, and the Application stood allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) — Interim Application (ST) No. 7964 of 2025 in Criminal Bail Application No. 5152 of 2024 — Naresh Tikamchand Jain v. The State of Maharashtra — Coram: Milind N. Jadhav, J. — Decided: April 09, 2025. The Applicant had been enlarged on bail by a common reasoned order of this Court dated 25.02.2025 passed along with co-Applicant Anil O. Khandelwal. With the period granted for furnishing sureties due to expire the next day, and the Applicant having been unable to find the requisite sureties despite release, he sought (prayer clause 7(i)) an extension of 8 weeks to furnish sureties. The learned APP for the State apprised the Court of the surety issue but, the Applicant only seeking extension, left the matter to the Court. Noting that an identical application of the co-accused in Interim Application No. 1418 of 2025 had been allowed the same day for the same relief, the Court found the Application deserved to be allowed and granted it in terms of prayer clause 7(i); the Interim Application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶1

501(ii)(A).IAST.7964.25.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 7964 of 2025 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5152 OF 2024

¶6

Naresh Tikamchand Jain .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

Ms. Sayee Sawant a/w. Mr. Shaunak Sawant, Advocates i/by Vidhi Partners for Applicant.

¶8

Ms. Megha S. Bajoria, APP for Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 09, 2025.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. Not on Board. Mentioned. Taken on Board.

¶12

2. Heard Ms. Sawant, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.

¶13

Bajoria, learned APP for Respondent – State.

¶14

3. On 25.02.2025, this Court had passed a common order for grant of bail in the case of present Applicant and another Applicant namely Anil O. Khandelwal. The said Applicant has also filed Interim Application No.1418 of 2025 in an urgency and moved the Court by praecipe dated 09.04.2025.

¶15

4. Ms. Sawant, learned Advocate for Applicant would persuade

¶16

the Court to consider the Application in view of the fact that the time

¶17

Corrected / Modified order as per speaking to minutes of order dated 25.04.2025. 1 of 3

¶18

501(ii)(A).IAST.7964.25.doc

¶19

granted for furnishing sureties would expire tomorrow and in view of that exigency the Applicant would not like to breach the order of the Court. Applicant has prayed for extension of time of 8 weeks to furnish the sureties as directed in view of the reasons stated in the Application in paragraph Nos.3 to 6.

¶20

5. Today, while considering an identical Application of the coaccused person in Interim Application No.1418 of 2025, this Court allowed the said Application for the same relief. Case of the Applicant who is already on bail in similar case as also the ignominy of the Applicant who is unable to find the requisite sureties despite his release on bail leading to the delay needs to be considered and the Application deserves to be allowed considering that the Applicant was enlarged on bail on 25.02.2025 by a reasoned order.

¶21

6. Ms. Bajoria appears for the prosecution – Respondent in the present case. She has also apprised the Court about the issue of sureties, but considering that the present Applicant only seeks extension, in all fairness, she has considered the reasons in the Application and left it to the Court to pass appropriate order.

¶22

7. In view of the above, Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 7(i) which reads thus:-

¶23

“i. It is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that, the Applicant herein may be granted an extension of 8 weeks to furnish sureties in the above captioned matter.”

¶24

Corrected / Modified order as per speaking to minutes of order dated 25.04.2025. 2 of 3

¶25

501(ii)(A).IAST.7964.25.doc

¶26

8. Interim Application stands allowed and disposed in the

¶27

above terms.

¶28

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶29

Ajay