Prakash Shekhar Hadimani vs the State of Maharashtra

The applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No.155 of 2024 dated 26.03.2024 registered with Hatkanangale Police Station, District Kolhapur, for the ofences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said crime, the applicant was arrested on 26.03.2024. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet is iled.

¶12

Present application is a successive application, the previous application presented by the applicant bearing Bail Application No. 4133 of 2024, was dismissed by the order of this Court, dated 21.01.2025.

¶13

It is well settled legal principle that a subsequent bail plea must be predicated on a substantial change in circumstances or

¶14

4-BA-3663-25.odt

¶15

2

¶16

the emergence of new material facts after the rejection of the previous application.

¶17

When confronted, the learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate any such new grounds or change in circumstances, could not demonstrate any fresh material or valid justiication that would warrant a reconsideration of the earlier decision.

¶18

The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors. [(2004)7 SCC 528] , while laying down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail in serious ofences like murder, has observed as under :

¶19

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious ofence. Any order devoid of such reasons would sufer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

¶20

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

¶21

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

¶22

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas.)

¶23

4-BA-3663-25.odt

¶24

3

¶25

12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then said court will have to given speciic reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted.”

¶26

Similarly, the Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Pralhad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi [(2001)4 SCC 280] , held that on satisfaction of prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the accused, the bail can be denied.

¶27

The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh [(2002)3 SCC 598] , has held that a judicial discretion in granting bail must not be exercised whimsically, especially in heinous ofences.

¶28

Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of UP through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005)8 SCC 21] , has held that the Court must evaluate the prima facie evidence showing the applicant's involvement. If such evidence is credible and supports the accusations, bail may be refused.

¶29

The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496] , has held that the mechanical grant of bail relects non-application of mind, and outlined eight crucial factors to be considered, including reasonable ground for belief in guilt, nature of evidence and

¶30

4-BA-3663-25.odt

¶31

4

¶32

possibility of justice being thwarted.

¶33

There is no material change in circumstances to warrant a contrary view. Moreover, the practice of iling successive bail applications while the trial is being conducted on a timely basis, such tactics only serve to protract the proceedings deserves to be deprecated.

¶34

Although, the applicant has been in custody since 26.03.2024, the gravity of the ofence and the prima facie evidence of the applicant’s involvement outweigh the grounds for release. The parties are directed to cooperate in the expeditious conduct of the trial rather than iling intervening applications that hinder the progress in trial.

¶35

In light of the aforesaid facts and precedents, the statutory embargo under the Act, and the repeated dismissal of previous application on similar grounds, this Court inds no merit in the present application.

¶36

Accordingly, the criminal bail application is rejected.

¶37

Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are conined to the extent of decision of this application and the trial Court shall not be inluenced by the same.

¶38

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶39

rrd

Prakash Shekhar Hadimani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Shekhar Hadimani v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash Alias Sonya Sukhdeo Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra

Shakil Ahamad Shahid Khan vs the State of Maharashtra

Sani Arun Pagare vs State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Ramchandra Ghadge Since Deceased and Anr. vs Dharmendra Dhondiba Gadge and Ors.

Ashok Sambhaji Sargar vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajinath Nagnath Waghmode vs the State of Maharashtra