Satish Ramesh Kurankar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

appln-417-2022.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.417 OF 2022 IN BA/576/2021 SATISH RAMESH KURANKAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR ...

Mr. B. S. Dhawale, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. V. M. Kagne, APP for the respondent No.1 - State. ...

CORAM

:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

DATE : 24.03.2022 ORDER :- .

Present application has been filed by the original accused for relaxation of condition imposed while granting bail to him. 2.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. B. S. Dhawale for the applicant and learned APP Mr. V. M. Kagne for the respondent No.1 - State. 3.

Applicant has been prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354(A)(1)(i), 506 of Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.1 of 2021. He had filed Bail Application No.576 of 2021 for grant of bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court allowed the said application on 21.10.2021 by imposing condition that he shall not enter Soygaon Taluka till the conclusion of trial and shall (1)

appln-417-2022.odt not contact victim.

4.

Now the applicant has come with a case that the said condition should be relaxed as his mother is ailing and there is nobody to look after her. Applicant has agricultural land in Soygaon and it is the only earning source for him. He has other family responsibilities also. 5.

All those situations were noted by this Court while dealing with the bail application. The apprehension of the prosecution is also required to be considered. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, such conditions are imposed. Applicant had stated in his bail application that he is ready to abide by the terms of the bail. Now, he cannot put his own conditions/excuses for relaxing those conditions. There is no merit in the application. It deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.

[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] scm (2)