Karansing @ Karan Mahadeo Solanki v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024:BHC-AUG:6447 902-ba-262-2024.odt (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 262 OF 2024 Karansing @ Karan Mahadeo Solanki

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Borulkar Avinash R. APP for Respondent/State : Mrs. M.L. Sangit ...

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATED : MARCH 21, 2024 PER COURT:- 1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

2.

This is a successive bail application of the applicant. As usual, the grounds for the successive bail is that the earlier lawyer did not put complete case before the Court. There is no law that failure on the part of the lawyer to point out the material facts is a change in circumstance. That apart, the Court while considering the earlier bail application has gone through the entire charge sheet and rejected the bail application.

3.

The next limb of argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that sections applied against the applicant are incorrect. If the applicant was not satisfied with the sections applied, he ought to have moved an application for discharge at the appropriate stage.

902-ba-262-2024.odt (2) 4.

There are no change in circumstances. The charges have already been framed and some of the witnesses have also been examined. So, there is progress in the trial. It cannot be said that the trial of the applicant has unnecessarily stalled. 5.

For the above reasons, the application stands dismissed. (S.G. MEHARE, J.) Mujaheed//